Ayn Rand received government aid

[EGarrett]

Why? If I take money from a millionaire, in order to feed a ten-year-old who would otherwise be forced to work in a coal mine, how is that morally wrong?

Because that's stealing. Do you understand why stealing isn't allowed in modern society?

Does this apply to all taxation, as well? Is it wrong for the government to tax my income and build schools?

No, it doesn't apply to all taxation. There are some functions that Rand (and many economists like Milton Friedman) believed were best done by the government, such as police and military services. Friedman and those other economists believe that taxes for those purposes are justified, so logically Rand probably supported the same (although unlike other people in this thread I don't pretend that I speak for her, it's much better to try to find more direct quotes from her relating to it.)

Regarding your second question, Rand did not agree with government for anything but a small number of basic functions, and I haven't heard her list public schooling as one of those functions. So I assume she would go with private schools, which many economists, again like Milton Friedman, feel are a better option overall anyway.

As for my personal feelings, the arguments of Friedman and Stossel and a number of other libertarians on these matters sound quite convincing. But I'm not an economist so I can only say that it sounds like they're probably right and we'd be better off with less taxes and a system of entirely private schools competing for students. But the topic of public schooling isn't something I've thought about much.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@EGarrett:

1. You seem to have this silly notion that her idealizing a sanitized version of Hickman instead of the real imperfect one is some kind of excuse. It isn't. It's exactly what makes her either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.

See, other than in her idiotic model, society's laws and rules and restrictions aren't there to deal with the best people. They're there to deal with the worst.

You can't in all seriousness propose a social model for only the best and most ideal sociopaths. (That's really the word for people who can't even understand why other people should matter.) A real model will have to deal with the fact that such people will also have a large number of the likes of Hickman, and Ted Bundy, and the rest of the gang.

At that point, Ayn Rand had it shoved under her nose that such a "wonderful" person could turn out to be like the real Hickman. Her handwaving that away and focusing just on an idealized version isn't an excuse, it's the damning part.

2. Nevertheless, she seems to find an awful lot of excuses for Hickman, and come out flinging a lot of vitriol at the people condemning him. She even manages to handwave to herself that those people would have the same reaction to her idealized version who hadn't committed a crime, thus effectively saying that the actual crime has no bearing on that. Admitting in passing that, basically, yeah, and some crime is in there too, means nothing when she then effectively argues its importance in that case to zero.

It's hard to find many factors that can redeem looking at the mass of people condemning Hickman, and saying that they have bigger sins and crimes on their conscience than, you know, cutting up a girl while she's still alive. Or that they're really to blame for not offering him something so good for being a sociopath, that he wouldn't do that. Or that basically what she learned from it was that society can break and then murder someone for not conforming.

The fact that now and then she does admit that Hickman wasn't all that perfect after all, or that there was some crime in there too, doesn't excuse the fact that then she dives right back into excusing the perp and blaming society

 

[I Am The Scum]

Because that's stealing. Do you understand why stealing isn't allowed in modern society?

Of course I understand why it's wrong. But my reasons for its immorality will undermine your conclusion. If you'd like, I can go ahead and explain why I think stealing is wrong most of the time, and how it is justified in the scenario I have laid out.

On your other point, by what means do we arrive at the conclusion that taxation for government program X is stealing, but taxation for government program Y is not? How do we make these distinctions?

 

[Earthborn]

Friedman and those other economists believe that taxes for those purposes are justified, so logically Rand probably supported the same

You may think she logically would, but you'd be wrong. She was against taxation and considered it an "initiation of force", or a form of theft which needs to be replaced by a system in which the government pays for its necessary functions through voluntary contributions. You can find some of her quotes on taxation here.

 

[BobTheCoward]

To quote Senator Clay Davis from The Wire..

"Shee-it, I'd take a M Fers money if he's giving it away."

 

[Mycroft]

Why do I have the feeling that it's like trying to nail Jello to the wall? Everything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion is somehow distorted or editorialized or doesn't have enough context.

But ok, here's an exact quote:

The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of the whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the "virtuous" indignation and mass-hatred of the "majority." One always feels the stuffy, bloodthirsty emotion of a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans. It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society.​

You'll notice that all that had been "editorialized" out in the previous version is some extra invectives at those people condemning her hero. I'm sorry if you expected it to be some profound philosophy that makes it all sound better, but it isn't. It's still the same deranged chick, only with more invectives in between the parts that were relevant.

Or

Adela Rogers St.-Johns cleverly noted that Hickman is an extremist, a type that can either be very good or very bad. This is true and the idea of the "extremist" is splendid. We should have more extremists—then life wouldn't be what it is. But she says that "an extremist is always dangerous" and we all should be just in between, the "golden mean," the balanced average. This is a wonderful expression of the view exactly opposite from mine. What I want to show in my book is just the horror of that middle: the illogical, inconsistent, weak, tolerant, mediocre, loathsome middle. For if men were extremists they would follow each idea and feeling to its end, they would be faithful to their purposes and to themselves, they would be clear, straight, and absolute in everything. And they wouldn't tolerate a lot of what is tolerated now. This is just what we need.
She says that Hickman could be either a very great man or a very great criminal. Well, it only shows that he is always great and the one thing impossible to him is pettiness and mediocrity. For this reason I admire Hickman and every extremist.​

Or

This is what I think of the case. I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't. But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough. The reaction of society would be the same, if not worse, toward the Hickman I have in mind. This case showed me how society can wreck an exceptional being, and then murder him for being the wreck that it itself has created. This will be the story of the boy in my book.​

Nowhere does she say Hickman is a good man. He captures her attention because he is extreme, and societies condemnation for him is extreme. She's a writer of fiction, and looking at things from a point of view that's different from the rest of us is what they do. If she speculates that this guy's extremism might have made him a very good person in different circumstances, that's not a condemnation of her.

 

[bookitty]

This is the kind of criticism I hear about Rand, but I don't get that from having read a couple of her books. While I've never studied objectivism as a philosophy, I haven't seen anything in the books I've read that stops people from having normal emotions and caring about other people. Her heroes do give to charity, they do want to contribute to society. They just don't want society, meaning government, to take away what they build.
She doesn't seem to be a big fan of inherited wealth either. In her novels, those that inherit wealth and don't know what to do with it tend to squander it uselessly.


But isn't that by coercion? Wouldn't Rand also say that if living your life for others, or a cause, or charity made you happy, to go ahead? Shes against taking your labor and your wealth by force, nothing stops you from giving away if it makes you happy to do so.

As I recall, the main protagonist in Atlas Shrugged has inherited a railroad. Her brother who is also part owner is vilified throughout the novel but only because he feels that the workers should not be exploited.

 

[Cain]

I like how Hitchens dismisses Ayn Rand: her great insight is that we're not self-centered enough.

 

[Dot Ardella]

As I recall, the main protagonist in Atlas Shrugged has inherited a railroad. Her brother who is also part owner is vilified throughout the novel but only because he feels that the workers should not be exploited.

James Taggart was spineless, and avoided all difficult decisions to save face. His main feature was loudly protesting things he hadn't said.

I don't think he was overly concerned about exploiting workers (unless it ruined his reputation.)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Nowhere does she say Hickman is a good man. He captures her attention because he is extreme, and societies condemnation for him is extreme. She's a writer of fiction, and looking at things from a point of view that's different from the rest of us is what they do. If she speculates that this guy's extremism might have made him a very good person in different circumstances, that's not a condemnation of her.

But

1. as I was saying, she then goes and makes a whole apology for a society where not giving a damn about others is the right thing to do, while handwaving away that that's what made Hickman. A social, political or economic model cannot deal only with the most ideal its consequences. And she'd get an excuse if she were some idealist who never thought of that, but not when she _is_ basing it on a murderer. Basing a society only on an ideal kind of Hickman that doesn't actually do evil stuff, is as stupid as basing an anti-vax campaign on only some idealized Tetanus and Smallpox that don't kill. A real workable model -- much less one presented as the only logical one -- would have to also deal with those that do, not handwave them away.

And doubly so when writing ideas like "For if men were extremists they would follow each idea and feeling to its end, they would be faithful to their purposes and to themselves, they would be clear, straight, and absolute in everything." (My emphasis.) She had it shoved under her nose what can happen when someone follows an idea like always wanting to gut someone and spread their organs all over town. _That_ is what Hickman decided to follow when he killed that girl, a gruesome fantasy that he had told an earlier accomplice before. Saying that people should follow _every_ idea to extremes is frikken stupid anyway for anyone with two brain-cells to rub together, but doubly so when she _is_ discussing exactly an example of a gruesome murder that was indeed just following an evil idea.

If she confined it to fiction, frankly I wouldn't care what she bases her characters on and who she secretly obsesses about. But when she makes a whole "Objectivist" brouhaha out of it, I do expect her to deal with all cases and not end up lying even to herself that, see, it's ok to think only of an idealized Hickman.

2. Ditto, on the topic of this thread, about healthcare and all that which she called people "looters" and "moochers" and whatever for. She had her nose shoved into the fact that random chance can make even someone like her, you know, fairly successful and who wasn't planning to mooch anything, unable to pay the medical bills and face a horrible death in the absence of such stuff. That she can stick to a, basically "screw 'em" philosophy even when seeing that evidence first hand, makes her either a monster or incredibly stupid.

3. Read those pages again. There are a _hell_ of a lot of excuses she finds for Hickman, and stuff which borders on surrealism, like proclaiming the "I am like the state: what is good for me is right" quote from to be, and this is an exact, full-sentence quote "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I ever heard."

And it's hard not to notice that, you know, if you compare what she says about him with what she says about the rest of the world, she really likes him more than she likes the rest of the world. She admits that Hickman, basically isn't perfect. But compare it to what she has to say about everyone else.

Pretty much the worst she ends up saying about him is that he wasn't strong enough to trample all society, and settled down for one murder. Whereas everything about the rest of the world, their morals, their golden middle behaviour, their _tolerance_ (yep, that too is listed under the horrors of that golden middle) is some kind of loathsome horror. Those people, in her own words, have worse crimes on their conscience than Hickman, and in fact end up to blame for Hickman's crime too.

Even when the press reported on Hickman having lost his defiance and bravado had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the noose, Rand feels a need to comment on that as being some kind of conspiracy to make him look bad.

He comes across as pretty much the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. Yes, he's not perfect -- I get the idea that in her deranged world, nobody but herself could ever be -- but the others come across far worse.

4. And in the end, the fact remains that she chose to model her hero after him, while the people shocked by his crimes are the model for her villains. And not in a taking the piss way, but apparently in an honest appraisal of who's the better person there, by her views.

 

[RobRoy]

As I recall, the main protagonist in Atlas Shrugged has inherited a railroad. Her brother who is also part owner is vilified throughout the novel but only because he feels that the workers should not be exploited.

Your point is certainly taken, but Dagny didn't inherit the Taggart Transcontinental. As I recall, Rand discussed that Dagny had started at one of the lowest positions within the company and worked her way up, while taking college courses for her degree, whereas James simply became the head of the company. She was a vice-president, and head of the company in everything but name, except where James was cajoled into making some erroneous and potentially disastrous decision, but Rand made her the logical head of the company and that she had earned her position, being capable of doing any job within. James, on the other hand, hadn't earned his position, and thus would have been a complete and utter failure, driving Taggart Transcontinental into the ground, if it hadn't been for Dagny.

I don't know Rand's position on inherited wealth though. But Dagny did start out with a huge advantage over just about everyone else in the entire world because of her family's money.

 

[Mycroft]

As I recall, the main protagonist in Atlas Shrugged has inherited a railroad. Her brother who is also part owner is vilified throughout the novel but only because he feels that the workers should not be exploited.

It's been a few years since I've read it, but my recollection is the brother spends all his time pleasing the fashionable political types and making disastrous decisions for the company, while Dagny is the one who keeps the company profitable by making the good decisions.

Dagny does not exploit the workers. Her workers get paid a "good days wage for a good days labor", whatever that means. Presumably it's enough to live comfortably and support their families. Both she and Henry Rearden extol the virtues of the people that work for them. They are valued because they are a vital part of the success of whatever business enterprise they're involved in.

Now if I personally were able to sit down with Ayn Rand, I'd ask her about the businesses that don't believe in paying a good wage. I suspect she would say something like those businesses would fail because they don't get enough quality workers over their competitors, but I suspect the more likely result is the negative consequences would be deferred for years, and the short term consequences would be an advantage over competitors who paid more.

But whatever you believe about the correctness of her beliefs, Rand doesn't say to exploit your workers.

 

[RobRoy]

Now if I personally were able to sit down with Ayn Rand, I'd ask her about the businesses that don't believe in paying a good wage. I suspect she would say something like those businesses would fail because they don't get enough quality workers over their competitors, but I suspect the more likely result is the negative consequences would be deferred for years, and the short term consequences would be an advantage over competitors who paid more.

I'd agree with you. Walmart is a prime example of a company that, until recently (and arguably still), didn't pay a competitive wage or offer competitive benefits, and yet the company has not only been successful, it is a model for success in the big box industry.

 

[Mycroft]

I'd agree with you. Walmart is a prime example of a company that, until recently (and arguably still), didn't pay a competitive wage or offer competitive benefits, and yet the company has not only been successful, it is a model for success in the big box industry.

Right. And back in the day when you had coal mines that would pay their workers in company script good at the company store...people will choose that over starvation even if it just means putting off starvation for a couple of decades. I'd like to hear how Rand would address that sort of abuse.

But it's important to understand that Rand did her writing back in the 50's, and was writing against communism. The evil she saw was the state telling the individual how they had to earn their living.

 

[RobRoy]

Right. And back in the day when you had coal mines that would pay their workers in company script good at the company store...people will choose that over starvation even if it just means putting off starvation for a couple of decades. I'd like to hear how Rand would address that sort of abuse.

I know that she would claim that the system would self-correct, but if profit is the driving factor, something Rand espoused, then marginalizing the workers, who provide for the largest cut of profit, it by far the easiest and quickest way to increasing capital, by which the company can then provide for (if done correctly) sustained growth.

That is, so long as the workforce pool remains large enough that the company can dictate wages. If the demand for workers were to outstrip the supply, then the workers obviously have the ability to start dictating terms.

But it's important to understand that Rand did her writing back in the 50's, and was writing against communism. The evil she saw was the state telling the individual how they had to earn their living.

Agreed. I think I mentioned earlier that Rand dealt in absolutes. Capitalism was, to her, the opposite of the Communist state which she had experienced. Thus, anything that smacked of a socialist agenda, which Communism espoused as its basis, must be evil. It's a flawed outlook that all elements of socialism are inherently bad.

 

[bookitty]

It's been a few years since I've read it, but my recollection is the brother spends all his time pleasing the fashionable political types and making disastrous decisions for the company, while Dagny is the one who keeps the company profitable by making the good decisions.

Dagny does not exploit the workers. Her workers get paid a "good days wage for a good days labor", whatever that means. Presumably it's enough to live comfortably and support their families. Both she and Henry Rearden extol the virtues of the people that work for them. They are valued because they are a vital part of the success of whatever business enterprise they're involved in.

Now if I personally were able to sit down with Ayn Rand, I'd ask her about the businesses that don't believe in paying a good wage. I suspect she would say something like those businesses would fail because they don't get enough quality workers over their competitors, but I suspect the more likely result is the negative consequences would be deferred for years, and the short term consequences would be an advantage over competitors who paid more.

But whatever you believe about the correctness of her beliefs, Rand doesn't say to exploit your workers.

Now that you've tweaked my memory a bit more, things are falling into place. I was most definitely wrong. There's some half-remembered speech the brother makes about nobility or spirituality, something. I only remember that it didn't sound all bad.

I really should re-read the books but no, can't do it. It's those pompous dinner party speeches, I loathe those with a passion to equal the heat of a superhot blue star.

 

[RobRoy]

Now that you've tweaked my memory a bit more, things are falling into place. I was most definitely wrong. There's some half-remembered speech the brother makes about nobility or spirituality, something. I only remember that it didn't sound all bad.

It’s not really bad, but it’s the method in which the statements/speeches are used to justify what truly are abhorrent actions. James Taggart mouthed the words that were handed to him by others, whom he considered smarter than himself (and some of them were, and obviously more manipulative), and to whom he wished to ingratiate himself.

It is only when Rand takes the concepts to the extreme that it starts to get silly.

I really should re-read the books but no, can't do it. It's those pompous dinner party speeches, I loathe those with a passion to equal the heat of a superhot blue star.

You could always just read The Fountainhead, which is shorter, with fewer characters, and thus with fewer speeches. I’m partial to that book, probably because at one point I wanted to be an architect, and it paralleled some of my studies on Frank Lloyd Wright.

I started re-reading Atlas Shrugged about a year ago, but I've clearly outgrown Rand. It was still interesting and it started out fun to read, but she continually hits you over the head with the same concepts, which tired me out. I think I could have handled an abridged version.

 

[Skeptic]

The problem with Rand is the same as the problem with communism and with romantic mideavalism.

In all of those fantasies there is a tiny group of the elect -- Rand's genius industrialists and engineers, communism's "workers of the mind", the lords and kings of the mideaval feudal period -- who control everybody else and tell them what to do.

The folks who support these fantasies always imagine THEMSELVES as being one of this tiny group of elect. They never, ever, imagine themselves as one of the 99.5% or so of the population who would be reduced to de facto slavery.

It's a pleasant fantasy, but any relationship between it and reality is dubious at best.

 

[Mycroft]

But...

The Hickman issue is new to me, I never heard of it before this forum thread. Reading through the quotes you present, I don't see the smoking gun that you do. I'm tempted to go through it in detail and hash it out, but I think that misses a larger point.

Reasonable and open-minded people should be able to discuss philosophers, writers and influential people without believing they need to accept or reject their ideas in total. Whether the person be Rand, Plato, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Marx, Friedman or Barack Obama, a reasonable and open-minded person should be able to say, "I like his ideas on this issue, but I'm not certain on this other issue, and I disagree on some things in total." Really, nobody is so perfect that their ideas should become the one and only true model to follow, and not very many people are so awful that they never say anything useful and worth thinking about.

As I said, I don't see the smoking gun you do. I don't see Rand endorsing Hickman's crimes. And more importantly, even if I did see the issue more like you do, if we were in complete agreement that Rand's apparent lionization of Hickman was wrong, it still wouldn't invalidate her ideas expressed in her major works. They're still just as influential and worthy for discussion regardless of Rands opinion of Hickman.

 

[Mycroft]

Now that you've tweaked my memory a bit more, things are falling into place. I was most definitely wrong. There's some half-remembered speech the brother makes about nobility or spirituality, something. I only remember that it didn't sound all bad.

I really should re-read the books but no, can't do it. It's those pompous dinner party speeches, I loathe those with a passion to equal the heat of a superhot blue star.

What I meant to say previously, and didn't because I was in a hurry, on the issue you raised on inherited wealth, Rand believes someone like James Taggert would squander away any fortune left to him no matter how large, and someone like Dagny would end up running a great railroad no matter what. That if you took everything away from her today, tomorrow she'd have a job with another railroad, and in a few months or a few years she'd either save or borrow enough to start a tiny but profitable railroad spur somewhere, and from that would grow another great and mighty railroad. What Rand doesn't seem to remember is how much help the US government played in the success of US railroads as far as land grants, etc., and how much a railroad depends on other people being willing to sell land or grant a right of way in the right area to make it profitable.

I started re-reading Atlas Shrugged about a year ago, but I've clearly outgrown Rand. It was still interesting and it started out fun to read, but she continually hits you over the head with the same concepts, which tired me out. I think I could have handled an abridged version.

I think we can all agree she's a terrible novelist. I never actually finished Atlas Shrugged, I left off somewhere near the end where Dagny was being rescued by her devoted band of suitor/capitalists. I don't remember what she was being rescued from, and have no idea what her ultimate fate was. I certainly agree the way Rand keeps hitting you over the head with the same point over and over again is tiresome, and think her books could be improved dramatically with the help of a good editor.