'Medicare' is an example of such a project. 'Isn't it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness?' its advocates clamor. Considered out of context, the answer would be: yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And it is at this point that the mental processes of a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight - it's for the good, isn't it? - it's not for myself, it's for others, it's for the public, for a helpless, ailing public...The fog hides such facts as the enslavement, and therefore, the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice, and the sacrifice of the professional integrity, the freedom, the careers, the lives of the very men who are to provide that 'desirable' goal - the doctors." - Collectivised Ethics, 1963
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Ayn Rand Quote of the Day
"The hallmark of such mentalities is the advocacy of some grand scale public goal, without regard to context, costs, or means. Out of context, such a goal can usually be shown to be desirable; it has to be public, because the costs are not to be earned, but to be expropriated; and a dense patch of venomous fog has to shroud the issue of means - because the means are to be human lives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
What is amazing Dan is that there are many people who consider this kind of writing to be a good way of arguing.
Unfortunately, they are found on both the left and the right side of politics and I just wish more people understood that these aren't rational arguments, if rational means "truth seeking".
This is exactly the thing that, when first confronted with an Objectivist trying to "persuade" me, made me reject Objectivism as a movement and seriously question its validity as a philosophy: the all-or-nothing viewpoint, the notion that any restriction on any person (especially rich people) is enslavement, nay, literal destruction of life itself.
I may be misinformed, but I've yet to hear of a Doctor who's been killed by Medicare, and medical science and medical practices seem to be chugging along still.
The obvious point is that comprehensive public health systems exist in almost every Western country except the USA, and have done for half a century or more.
Has medical science in those countries been "destroyed" or "disintegrated"? Are those doctors "enslaved", sacrificing all their integrity and freedom; indeed their very "lives"?
This is just madness of course. While the public health systems in various countries are doubtlessly flawed, they are nothing resembling Rand's freaked out description.
But the thing that strikes me is that I didn't see this quote surface during the recent controversy about Rand accepting Medicare. During this, the main defense of Rand was basically, hey, she's just taking her money back from the Man, she had every right to as she'd paid in at least something and was entitled to take part in the system.
Surely, given the extreme tenor of Rand's assault on Medicare in this quote now makes this position untenable. Surely it implies that when Rand seems to have applied for Medicare a decade later, she was taking refuge in that very "fog" herself.
But does the true humor lie in the gloriously failed prediction of the enslavement of doctors, or Rand's own hypocritical use of the Medicare system?
Essentially, when the facts fail to match your theories you can always try to plug the gap with hysterical bullshit.
"The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.
"Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims 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
The Question of Scholarships
The Objectivist, June, 1966
Jonathan,
Any thoughts on why despite having written the above, Rand was reluctant to take Medicare? Given the above, she should have immediately applied for as many government programs as she could have, including Social Security at the First Opportunity.
Laj
You could apply that argument to any public service.
"You are morally justified in driving on public streets and allowing the police to assist you in an emergency if and only if you regard it as a restitution for the taxes that they literally tore from your pocket at gunpoint."
The true problem with the Rand rant above is that it applies equally well to policing and defense, which she presumably endorses. Grand scale public goals, "out of context", paid for with money "expropriated".
The first problem with straight-quoting Rand without elaboration or explanation, Jonathan, is that it's about as persuasive as a street preacher quoting to Bible to an atheist (or Jew, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or any non-Christian), i.e., it's an appeal to an authority that the other person does not recognize as such.
The second problem with quoting Rand is that you're quoting Rand. She was not a deep or thorough thinker, as evidenced by the quotes themselves. Others have already pointed out that the reasoning in two of your quotes is so loosey-goosey that it can be applied to any government-provided service someone takes a dislike to, but this quote really tells us all we need to know about Rand and her so-called arguments: "If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims," is a classic Randian punt. She's basically saying that if you don't already agree with her, you're too stupid to understand her reasoning, therefore, she doesn't have to explain it to you. I don't know about you, but someone who calls me stupid and refuses to explains the reasoning behind their conclusions is the exact opposite of persuasive.
@ Laj:
"Any thoughts on why despite having written the above, Rand was reluctant to take Medicare?"
I have no idea why she would have been reluctant to take advantage of government programs as a means of getting her money back. I suppose I could speculate. Perhaps she thought that she'd save the opportunity until late in life when she might actually need considerable funds instead of tediously taking her tax money back piecemeal, such as by running down to the local armory on the first Tuesday of each month to pick up a single block of government cheese? Perhaps she didn't qualify for most of the programs?
J
@CW:
"You could apply that argument to any public service.
"'You are morally justified in driving on public streets and allowing the police to assist you in an emergency if and only if you regard it as a restitution for the taxes that they literally tore from your pocket at gunpoint.'"
Indeed, and it's my understanding that that is exactly what Rand believed: Streets and police should not be funded by taking money from individuals against their will.
J
@Huben:
"The true problem with the Rand rant above is that it applies equally well to policing and defense, which she presumably endorses. Grand scale public goals, 'out of context', paid for with money 'expropriated'."
Rand believed that the services which she thought were proper functions of government should be funded voluntarily, so I don't see a contradiction in her views on this subject.
J
@Rey:
"She's basically saying that if you don't already agree with her, you're too stupid to understand her reasoning, therefore, she doesn't have to explain it to you. I don't know about you, but someone who calls me stupid and refuses to explains the reasoning behind their conclusions is the exact opposite of persuasive."
I think that what she's saying is that the immorality of the actions of the state, or of any group of people, are no different than the immorality of the actions of individuals. In effect, if an individual thief steals your money, you have the right to get it back, including by means which may cause some people to be confused about the true rightful ownership of the money (for example, if a thief steals your money but then makes a public display of offering you and others a free food program because he wants to fool people into believing that his actions are moral and driven by altruism, you would have the right to get some of the value of your money back by taking the food -- it doesn't become immoral just because some people are stupid enough to believe that the money is rightfully the thief's or the public's because the thief is claiming to be moral or official or whatever), and the same is true of groups of thieves and of governments who are not funded
voluntarily but rely on the initiation of force.
Rand was not contradicting herself by taking Medicare or any other form of government assistance.
J
If memory serves me right, Jonathan has accused writers on this blog elsewhere of failing to present Rand's thought properly. My guess is that he is quoting the above in order to expose us to it, not realizing that we are all already aware of it and find it quite wanting.
I have no idea why she would have been reluctant to take advantage of government programs as a means of getting her money back. I suppose I could speculate. Perhaps she thought that she'd save the opportunity until late in life when she might actually need considerable funds instead of tediously taking her tax money back piecemeal, such as by running down to the local armory on the first Tuesday of each month to pick up a single block of government cheese? Perhaps she didn't qualify for most of the programs?
Not at all, Jonathan. According to the worker/lawyer who filed for her, she was opposed to taking Social Security. From 100 Voices :
“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.
The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”
Why the inconsistency in her viewpoint?
Generally, these are the kinds of things you have to answer to realize that ultimately, one can rationalize anything one wants to do if one feels he or she has to do it.
Rand was not contradicting herself by taking Medicare or any other form of government assistance.
I'm not sure it is possible to "contradict" yourself by acting, but my point is that her actions show that
1) she could moralize with the best of them when not forced to make a practical decision one way or another.
2) she was too proud to take Medicare and Social Security because she saw them as handouts but caved in in part after being convinced by someone else and the weight of those bills.
yet
3) her argument for scholarships is exactly what you walked out when it was pointed out that she had a problem taking a government handout.
But why did she have a struggle in taking Medicare if she had already made a clear argument she could have relied on for doing so?
MY position is that it is because the arguments are rationalizations for whatever purpose she ultimately wanted to get to! Or at the very least, you have to admit that her behavior was inconsistent with her reluctant to take Medicare.
This is not the first time this topic has shown up on this blog, so we are not unaware of anything you are posting here.
Jonathan:
>Rand was not contradicting herself by taking Medicare or any other form of government assistance.
Jonathan invokes the standard defense, which we'll call the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach which I had already mentioned in my comment above. This line of argument is nowhere near as simple as he thinks, as the issue then becomes basically an accounting one. Clearly if you are going to use this argument, you are not allowed to steal more from the thieves than was taken, as then *you* would be stealing someone else's money.
This moral assertion of thievery places a moral responsibility on the asserter not to become a thief herself. Now, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Rand made any steps to ensure that she and her husband benefited no more from say the Medicare system than they had put in - a critical step if she sincerely believed this "their own money" line of argument was valid. Further, she did not exactly publicize the fact that they were signing up for this government program. If anything, it was all kept rather quiet. Why? Surely she could have done the accounting - not that complicated an exercise - then taken the government aid, proudly declaring that she'd been fully consistent with her stated principles. Not only would it have been great PR - and Rand had a flair for such publicity - it would have been a model example of how an Objectivist should conduct themselves in the statist society they found themselves born in.
Yet she didn't. It was all done very quietly, the details only emerging recently. Why?
Two obvious reasons suggest themselves. Firstly, that Rand and her husband guessed that they probably stood to gain more from a program like Medicare than they'd put in - Frank in particular was in poor health, and the program had only started in 1965. Thus they could well end up violating their own moral argument, thus decided not to make too much of a big deal about it.
The second reason is, as I wrote earlier, simply the tenor of her criticism of something like Medicare - basically comparing it the slavery system - starts to make her accession to it seem even more dubious. If an anti-slavery reformer nevertheless kept a couple of slaves on the basis that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, they would naturally have damaged their reputation as a result. Hence another reason to keep it all a bit quiet.
@Mike Huben, Jonathan is correct that Rand did not advocate compulsory taxation for defense or justice.
However, by her own admission she failed to come up with anything more than a vague, tentative suggestion as to how such essential services might be funded. Indeed, she was so far from a serious solution she claimed that removing compulsory taxation for these services was the very last step that should be taken in the future Objectivist society. Given that in the half century since Atlas Shrugged the amount of Objectivists in say the US is a tiny fraction of a percent of the population, at this rate it will literally be thousands of years before the "cultural change" required to abolish taxation.
So the effective Objectivist policy recommendation for the foreseeable future remains...tolerate coercion!
"Indeed, and it's my understanding that that is exactly what Rand believed: Streets and police should not be funded by taking money from individuals against their will."
Then, she believed in an impractical and unrealistic principle.
But I bet she got a lot more use and benefit from publicly-funded roads than the government ever forced out of her.
Then, she believed in an impractical and unrealistic principle.
You have to be realistic about human beings to arrive at that conclusion. If you are willing to accept that human beings are by and large what they are, and that this is not just the result of being fed ridiculous premises, you're more likely to accept that reject them, unlike Rand, who thought that human beings had the most libertarian free will which was entirely ruled by premises they had accepted.
That is where the truly unrealistic and impractical principle is.
I have no idea why she would have been reluctant to take advantage of government programs as a means of getting her money back. I suppose I could speculate. Perhaps she thought that she'd save the opportunity until late in life when she might actually need considerable funds instead of tediously taking her tax money back piecemeal
This is an implausible explanation. It's unlikely that Rand was calculating this out. A more likely explanation would be along these lines. Rand had an emotional distaste about taking advantage of government programs because (1) her mentor Isabel Paterson (along with Rose Wilder Lane) had refused to do so (despite being much poorer than Rand) and (2) because it's not exactly heroic (i.e., Roark or Galt wouldn't have taken advantage of such programs). I think it's important not to be misled by advice she gave to followers. It's likely she would hold herself up to a higher standard. Keep in mind, that she didn't really consider her followers her equals. (They weren't even Objectivists, merely "students of Objectivism.") Paterson, who had mentored Rand, would be closer to an equal. So if Paterson refused government assistance, what possible excuse could Rand have? In any case, it would be somewhat humiliating for a woman with her views and from her generation to give in when her individualist peers from the 30s and 40s remained steadfast and refused the filthy lucre of the government.
@Xtra:
"Why the inconsistency in her viewpoint?"
I don't know that the social worker's statements about what Rand discussed with her accurately represent Rand's views. I'd need to hear what Rand actually said to the social worker. Frankly, I have about as much confidence in people's characterizations of Rand's views as I do in Rand's characterizations of others' views.
In the quote you provided, it sounds as if the social worker was trying to take credit for giving Rand the idea that she had the right to get her money back, which would suggest that she not aware of Rand's published views from 1966 on the subject. That's a bit odd, don't you think?
"MY position is that it is because the arguments are rationalizations for whatever purpose she ultimately wanted to get to! Or at the very least, you have to admit that her behavior was inconsistent with her reluctant to take Medicare."
I don't know that Rand was reluctant to take Medicare, or if she was, what her reasoning may have been. All that you've presented is someone else's interpretation of what she believed were Rand's views. I'd need more than that to conclude that Rand was rationalizing or being hypocritical.
J
@Dan:
"Jonathan invokes the standard defense, which we'll call the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach which I had already mentioned in my comment above."
My defense is anything but "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." One is not "joining" a thief by taking one's money back from him. I wonder if the social worker had mischaracterized Rand's views as blatantly as you've just mischaracterized mine.
"Clearly if you are going to use this argument, you are not allowed to steal more from the thieves than was taken, as then *you* would be stealing someone else's money. This moral assertion of thievery places a moral responsibility on the asserter not to become a thief herself."
I agree. If Rand took more than was taken from her, she was a thief. Do you have evidence that she took more than was taken from her? Are you suggesting that you have proof that the government took less than $13,945 from Rand and her husband during their lives?
"Now, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Rand made any steps to ensure that she and her husband benefited no more from say the Medicare system than they had put in - a critical step if she sincerely believed this "their own money" line of argument was valid."
Does the fact that you haven't seen evidence prove to you that Rand did not take any steps to ensure that she received no more than was taken form her?
J
@Dan:
"Two obvious reasons suggest themselves. Firstly, that Rand and her husband guessed that they probably stood to gain more from a program like Medicare than they'd put in - Frank in particular was in poor health, and the program had only started in 1965. Thus they could well end up violating their own moral argument, thus decided not to make too much of a big deal about it."
So in your view, one must concern oneself with the manner in which a thief organizes and categorizes the money that he has taken from his victims? If I were to take $100,000 from you, against your will, over a period of 25 years and put it in Money Pile A in my garage, and then take an additional $7.52 from you and put it in Money Pile B in my basement, and if I were to then allow you to take as much money from Money Pile B as you felt that you needed to pay for your upcoming dental operation, are you suggesting that you think that it would be immoral for you to take more than $7.52 from Money Pile B? In your view, does money magically cease to be fungible when a thief separates the stolen funds into different piles according to how he wants to store or spend it?
If so, I would imagine that there's a much more efficient way to vilify Rand and accuse her of hypocrisy. Surely she withdrew cash from her bank at some point in her life, no? Well, when she withdrew cash, did she look at the serial numbers and verify that the bank was giving her back the actual individual bills which she had deposited? If not, then she was a thief and a hypocrite by your "reasoning," because she took someone else's money!!!!
Seriously, you guys have made a lot of very potent, intelligent criticisms of Rand over the years. Why lower yourself to this? It's as if you need to believe that Rand was a hypocrite on this issue, regardless of what her views actually were. She's becoming to you what Kant was to her.
J
"If I were to take $100,000 from you, against your will, over a period of 25 years and put it in Money Pile A in my garage, and then take an additional $7.52 from you and put it in Money Pile B in my basement, and if I were to then allow you to take as much money from Money Pile B as you felt that you needed to pay for your upcoming dental operation, are you suggesting that you think that it would be immoral for you to take more than $7.52 from Money Pile B? In your view, does money magically cease to be fungible when a thief separates the stolen funds into different piles according to how he wants to store or spend it?"
The flaw in this argument is that if you wish to lump ALL of the objected-to taxes and "thievery" that Rand was subjected to, by rights you then have to also tally up ALL of the benefits Rand received by virtue of such taxation, not just Medicare.
It is, granted, a little more difficult to do that, since the government doesn't cut everyone a check for, say, the use of public roads.
Jonathan:
>Seriously, you guys have made a lot of very potent, intelligent criticisms of Rand over the years. Why lower yourself to this? It's as if you need to believe that Rand was a hypocrite on this issue, regardless of what her views actually were. She's becoming to you what Kant was to her.
My mother always used to say "I've told you a thousand times, don't exaggerate!"..;-)
I think you're exaggerating a bit here Jonathan, tho I appreciate the kind words about some of our other stuff.
Here's what I wrote back when this kerfuffle first blew up. I discuss how conflicted Rand was over this, and you'll see I'd already referenced exactly the arguments you've presented, so you're not telling us anything we didn't know. Here's how that piece concludes:
"In the end, Rand was an elderly woman of frail health with no family to support her, the fearful burden of a husband suffering from dementia, and facing a future that their means might not be sufficient for. In other words, she was the very person government programs such as Medicare and Social Security was designed for. Equally naturally, she looked at the options and took the money. The only question is why she would still consider the fact that option even existed to be ultimately evil."
Is that really the same as say, calling her the most evil person who ever lived? I don't think it's even in the same ballpark myself. Hence I think your comparison is off base. The point of this quote was as much about the inaccuracy of her argument as the hysteria of it. However, I did find the level of vilification such that I was surprised this quote didn't surface back then. To me, it's this that makes that standard defense increasingly unsustainable: in effect, this system of medical slave labour may destroy science, integrity, freedom, careers, indeed human lives; but as I paid in, I'm going to get my piece of it anyway!
PS there's a link in the above comment that doesn't show up for some reason until you go to post a comment.
It just hit me why the taxation=theft argument just does not work for me, and it's this: most of us regard it as the cost of living in this country with these particular rights and benefits. I've heard Objectivists use the argument that since they don't consent to tax, and it is enforced by law (by force if necessary), it is no different than being mugged on the street.
But everyone does tacitly consent to tax, by choosing to live in this country above all others. Objectivists might have you believe there is no alternative for them - which is wrong. There are alternatives, but none of them may be any better. This is the free market in action, in a way - each country has a cost, their advantages are the product, and each person has to make do with what products are available, and pay the cost or switch products. Some things are necessities, and you can't choose not to have them.
Food, for example: the fact that I might desire, say, chocolate-marianated eagle meat as the best most perfect food for my diet does not mean that I can expect it to be made available at an affordable price, or even at any price. And yet to keep myself alive, I must buy and eat something no matter how unsatisfactory it may be in comparison.
A man must have a place to live, and there are precious few spots that are government-free, or can readily be changed to meet Objectivist standards. The lack of a perfect Objectivist society does not have anything to do with the necessity of a man needing a place to exist; therefore one must make a choice between all available options and choose which one suits them the best.
Therefore: consent, if not satistfaction.
Therefore: not theft.
I don't know that the social worker's statements about what Rand discussed with her accurately represent Rand's views. I'd need to hear what Rand actually said to the social worker. Frankly, I have about as much confidence in people's characterizations of Rand's views as I do in Rand's characterizations of others' views.
So could you provide your explanation of how Pryor (who described Rand as having strong principles in not so many words) could have misinterpreted Rand? Remember, this is not an abstruse philosophical debate. Rand was either conflicted or not conflicted on whether to take Social Security/Medicare. According to you, taking Social Security/Medicare is not against Objectivism based on the rationalization she used to defend accepting government scholarships. Yet Rand was clearly conflicted on the issue for *some* reason, even if we want to, as you do, doubt people who are not Objectivists just because we do not trust non-Objectivists when they report conversations with Rand.
The issue here is that Rand demonized the Social Security using such words as "enslavement", "the destruction of medical science" etc. Yet she ultimately ended up taking these "out of context" benefits that the system was designed to create.
As Greg also pointed out, your using Rand's quote on scholarships doesn't answer the question of whether it would have been *superior* behavior not to take the Medicare and Social Security. I'm not sure why you decided not to address this point made by Greg that Rand might have wanted to holder herself to higher standards.
I don't know that Rand was reluctant to take Medicare, or if she was, what her reasoning may have been. All that you've presented is someone else's interpretation of what she believed were Rand's views. I'd need more than that to conclude that Rand was rationalizing or being hypocritical.
No, that's not all or what I've done. What I've shown is that Rand had a conflict on whether to take Social Security/Medicare or not. There is no reason to disbelieve this - while I have not read 100 Voices, it is an AR Archives publication (the staff are usually professional historians) and Pryor's relationship was described extensively. Whether you agree with Pryor's characterization of Rand's argument for ideological reasons, I'll leave up to you.
But the fact is that Rand saw something wrong (or at least, not ideal) in collecting Social Security. Rationalize it away as you please, but at least be aware of this.
@Dan:
"To me, it's this that makes that standard defense increasingly unsustainable: in effect, this system of medical slave labour may destroy science, integrity, freedom, careers, indeed human lives; but as I paid in, I'm going to get my piece of it anyway!"
And that's what makes your judgment of Rand on this subject so off-base to me. From my perspective, you are saying, in effect, that it would be an example of ridiculousness and hypocrisy for someone to use very strong language when ranting against thieves, but to then be willing to take one's money back from a thief. Your argument is nonsensical. It's as if you're refusing to be rational about the issue so that you can claim that Rand was a hypocrite.
J
@Xtra:
"So could you provide your explanation of how Pryor (who described Rand as having strong principles in not so many words) could have misinterpreted Rand?"
There are any number of ways in which a person could misinterpret another.
"Remember, this is not an abstruse philosophical debate."
The issue may have been abstruse to Pryor. Perhaps it was even as difficult for her to grasp as it has been for you.
"Rand was either conflicted or not conflicted on whether to take Social Security/Medicare. According to you, taking Social Security/Medicare is not against Objectivism based on the rationalization she used to defend accepting government scholarships."
It's interesting that to you, a person must be "rationalizing" to believe that she has the right to take back money that was taken from her.
"Yet Rand was clearly conflicted on the issue for *some* reason..."
If Rand was indeed conflicted, we don't know her reasoning. Perhaps she suspected that people like you would try to use her taking of government aid as a means of smearing her and calling her a hypocrite? Perhaps she suspected that people like you would willfully ignore what her actual stated position was on the subject?
"...even if we want to, as you do, doubt people who are not Objectivists just because we do not trust non-Objectivists when they report conversations with Rand."
What the hell are you talking about? Have you been driven insane by your hatred of Rand? It's not an issue of my not trusting non-Objectivists, but of not accepting ~anyone's~ characterizations of someone else as representing what that person must have believed. Here's an idea: try to get control over your hatred for Rand and Objectivists, calm down and reread my posts, and, when doing so, consider the possibility that I'm not the Randroid that you've emotionally decided that I must be.
Christ. It's quite possible that I've been more critical of Rand and her followers than you have. Seriously, you're really coming across as a hate-driven dipshit.
"The issue here is that Rand demonized the Social Security using such words as "enslavement", "the destruction of medical science" etc. Yet she ultimately ended up taking these "out of context" benefits that the system was designed to create."
She also opposed individual thievery, so I'd imagine that you'd think that she should have been criticized and called a hypocrite if she had been burglarized and had then taken her money back from an individual thief. Your argument is nonsensical. Jesus. Let's go over it again: In 1966 Rand published her philosophically based position that those who oppose government programs which are funded by theft have the right to take advantage of such programs, if they so choose, as a means of getting their money back. She opposed Social Security and Medicare on the grounds that it was theft. Eight years later she and her husband applied for Social Security and/or Medicare. Did you follow that? Can you set aside your emotions long enough to understand that, in accepting Social Security and/or Medicare, she was not being hypocritical, but was acting ~according to her stated beliefs~? It really shouldn't be so hard for you to grasp this.
J
In 1966 Rand published her philosophically based position that those who oppose government programs which are funded by theft have the right to take advantage of such programs, if they so choose, as a means of getting their money back. She opposed Social Security and Medicare on the grounds that it was theft. Eight years later she and her husband applied for Social Security and/or Medicare. Did you follow that? Can you set aside your emotions long enough to understand that, in accepting Social Security and/or Medicare, she was not being hypocritical, but was acting ~according to her stated beliefs~? It really shouldn't be so hard for you to grasp this.
Nothing here has been hard to grasp. But I have pointed out (and you have conveniently omitted) that
1) Pryor, who actually associated with Rand, unlike you who is talking about her behavior second-hand,
2) said that it was a difficult decision for Rand to take Social Security and Medicare.
This has little to do with
1) what Rand believed - as
2) even if Pryor did not understand Objectivism, it beggars belief that she would go so far as to claim that Rand did not want to take Social Security/Medicare when Rand actually wanted to and was justified in doing so!
The main point is that (3) Rand should have enthusiastically informed Pryor that Rand wanted to take those benefits if Rand accepted her own argument as being an unproblematic and complete justification.
Obviously, you prefer to muddy the issue by
1) saying you can't trust Pryor's understanding of Rand's position (as if it takes a lot to understand that Rand didn't want to do something),
2) calling me a "hate-driven dipshit", as if my point rests on disdain for Rand, rather than simply pointing out inconvenient facts that you have continually tried to sidestep in your defense of Rand.
What you should really say is that you think Pryor is a liar, because if you think that Pryor is lying and Rand was not conflicted, then we can see the source of our difference. But you have only said that Pryor did not understand Rand, and my point is that explain to me what is so hard to understand about not wanting to take Social Security/Medicare?
Since this is the crux of my argument, I'll ignore the irrelevant stuff and ask point blank: Are you saying that Pryor was a liar and that Rand was not conflicted at all about taking Social Security/Medicare?
If Rand was indeed conflicted, we don't know her reasoning. Perhaps she suspected that people like you would try to use her taking of government aid as a means of smearing her and calling her a hypocrite? Perhaps she suspected that people like you would willfully ignore what her actual stated position was on the subject?
Wouldn't that be what Objectivists call "social metaphysics"? In any case, I have not ignored her stated position - I have pointed out that her conflict makes no sense given her stated position. In fact, her stated position makes it possible to oppose all government programs in words, and to be a fully participating member of society in practice as there is no limit placed on what is moral to take from the government given what one has paid in!
Every religion makes compromises with practical everyday living in order to 1) allow for more adherents and 2) to create a method for stratifying adherents. I really believe that if Rand could have avoided taking Medicare or Social Security, she would have. But her written position as quoted by you makes it seem as if she should have EAGERLY applied at the first opportunity!
@ Laj:
"The main point is that (3) Rand should have enthusiastically informed Pryor that Rand wanted to take those benefits if Rand accepted her own argument as being an unproblematic and complete justification."
I agree that Rand should have enthusiastically taken the benefits, and she should have publicly announced that she was doing so and why. We don't know for certain that she hesitated, or why should would have. There could be any number of reasons why she may have felt conflicted about the issue, including some really stupid reasons, such as that she momentarily cared what others would think, or thought that it would be too hard to explain to morons that she was not being hypocritical in taking her money back via government programs. If she did hesitate, her hesitation cannot be taken as proof that she felt or believed that her argument from 1966 was "problematic and an incomplete justification" as you seem to believe.
"2) calling me a 'hate-driven dipshit', as if my point rests on disdain for Rand, rather than simply pointing out inconvenient facts that you have continually tried to sidestep in your defense of Rand."
Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent our discussion, or are you just incapable of focusing your attention and following along? The reason that I called you a dipshit had nothing to do with your "point," but with your trying to paint me as a Randroid. Go back and reread our discussion. You stupidly asserted that I want to doubt non-Objectivists because I don't trust non-Objectivists. That's a dipshit assumption on your part, since I generally trust Objectivists' interpretations of things far less than I trust non-Objectivists' interpretations. You've apparently decided that anyone who opposes any accusations that you make against Rand must be a flaming Randroid.
"Since this is the crux of my argument, I'll ignore the irrelevant stuff and ask point blank: Are you saying that Pryor was a liar and that Rand was not conflicted at all about taking Social Security/Medicare?"
No, I'm not saying that Pryor was lying. Is that the only option in your mind as to what I must be saying? Can you think of no other possibilities?
"Wouldn't that be what Objectivists call 'social metaphysics'?"
Absolutely. If Rand was worried about how she would be perceived by others, that would be an example of what Objectivists call "social metaphysics." I think that Rand was sometimes ~very~ concerned about what others thought when she shouldn't have been.
"In any case, I have not ignored her stated position - I have pointed out that her conflict makes no sense given her stated position. In fact, her stated position makes it possible to oppose all government programs in words, and to be a fully participating member of society in practice as there is no limit placed on what is moral to take from the government given what one has paid in!"
Yes, and it's also true that it is possible to oppose individual thievery, violence, captivity, slavery, rape, etc., and to take full advantage of the food, clothing, money and other valuables that an individual criminal might allow you to have in between beatings and rapings. But you seem to think that that's a silly position to take. You seem to believe that your ejaculations of incredulity are an effective argument. You seem to be intent on blaming victims: Finding the most hostile interpretation of events possible, and accusing the victims of "participating" in the crime by accepting their property back. Why is that?
J
@Jonathan
We don't know for certain that she hesitated...
This is precisely the problem I have with your approach to the argument, Jonathan. You've failed to explicate in any detail what your problem with Pryor is when she points out that Rand did not want to take Medicare, yet, you say "we don't know for certain that she hesitated..."
However, thankfully, you agree that:
... Rand should have enthusiastically taken the benefits, and she should have publicly announced that she was doing so and why.
Since we can all have opinions, some clearly greater stretches than others, I think the fact that she didn't do so, or at the very least, was conflicted about it says something important. If you don't, that is fine.
Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent our discussion, or are you just incapable of focusing your attention and following along? The reason that I called you a dipshit had nothing to do with your "point," but with your trying to paint me as a Randroid.
I never painted you as a Randroid - in fact, Randroids are not the only people who take Objectivist accounts more charitably than those of others. I ventured a reasonable explanation based on past experience as to why you decided not to give Pryor's testimony any credibility in the absence of such an explanation by you. You always had the option of explaining what was problematic about Pryor, but vague generalities always leave me wondering what the bone of contention really is and whether it is sourced in goodwill or not.
The explanation for Rand's behavior is clear and was succinctly described by Pryor: Rand like to believe that she needed no one's help. She needed to reframe the issue as taking back money she paid into the system, even though others had framed the issue differently (a Ponzi scheme etc.) Part of the reason I bring up the conflict is that Objectivists like to pretend Rand was this fully integrated being who didn't have the problems that everyday people did when it came to making decisions.
Yes, and it's also true that it is possible to oppose individual thievery, violence, captivity, slavery, rape, etc., and to take full advantage of the food, clothing, money and other valuables that an individual criminal might allow you to have in between beatings and rapings. But you seem to think that that's a silly position to take. You seem to believe that your ejaculations of incredulity are an effective argument. You seem to be intent on blaming victims: Finding the most hostile interpretation of events possible, and accusing the victims of "participating" in the crime by accepting their property back. Why is that?
I disagree with your analogies through and through. I do not believe that social security and medicare taxes are theft. I do not believe that collecting them is getting back what a thief has taken from you. I think such positions are based on moral codes that I can understand, but which I think can get those who believe those codes into trouble if they take themselves too seriously. I might have taken such codes more seriously 10 years ago when I was naive and younger, but I don't anymore, as I am more interested in understanding why people think the way they do than in changing people's minds.
So no, I do not consider people "victims", especially when these victims are people who would often vote to preserve the very theft they are suffering under. Hopefully, that helps. I do think you might have problems given your worldview, but I don't know you well enough to be sure, and I find that many people are emboldened by internet anonymity to say things that they could never say in person. Having ventured a significant part of my identity out for public consumption, and given my appreciation for my mortality as I grow older, I no longer see the value in hurling psychic poison at faceless people on the Net for fun.
Do remember that just as people are being "stolen from", there are other people being comforted and being kept into old age by the "stolen" funds. The people who do not think Social Security is theft are probably the large majority of Americans, but I guess once one rejects consensus as an epistemic tool (however imperfect, as any epistemic tool must be), one is allowed to take one's eccentricities as signs of genius.
Cheers!
XL:
"I think the fact that she didn't do so, or at the very least, was conflicted about it says something important."
It says something "important"? Wow. It's not merely kind of interesting -- just interesting enough to make you consider some of the many, many possible motives that Rand might have had -- but it says something "important" about her and her ideas? Heh.
Here, let's try this: As I've said in this discussion, I agree with Rand that people have the right to take their money back through government programs if they oppose the existence of those programs. There are several such programs which I could be taking advantage of, and, in fact, occasionally I've been personally invited and encouraged by government employees to sign up for certain programs to get "free money," yet I haven't done so.
Do you think that you know why? Does my not having signed up say something "important" to you about my beliefs? Do you actually think that you can know anything about my philosophical consistency or the practicability of my ideas based on the fact that I haven't taken certain opportunities to get my money back despite the fact that I think that I have the right to do so?
"I ventured a reasonable explanation based on past experience as to why you decided not to give Pryor's testimony any credibility in the absence of such an explanation by you."
Ah, so after I said to you, "Frankly, I have about as much confidence in people's characterizations of Rand's views as I do in Rand's characterizations of others' views," you thought that it was "reasonable" to conclude that I don't trust non-Objectivists? Dipshit.
"So no, I do not consider people 'victims', especially when these victims are people who would often vote to preserve the very theft they are suffering under. Hopefully, that helps.
Actually, it doesn't "help." See, someone's voting to preserve programs would be an example of someone ~supporting~ the existence of the programs, not opposing them. How did you miss that part of the excerpt from Rand that I posted?!!! You really have difficulty following even the simplest discussions, don't you? Wow, what a waste of time this is turning out to be.
J
@Jonathan,
While you make some good points, there's an underlying question I think you should consider. It probably hasn't come through all that clearly, in the discussion so far, although I thought I hit it reasonably heavily in my post a year ago on this topic.
Perhaps I should put it more clearly still:
Did Ayn Rand and Frank collect Social Security, and probably Medicare, because they wanted to, or because they needed to?
@Dan:
"Did Ayn Rand and Frank collect Social Security, and probably Medicare, because they wanted to, or because they needed to?"
Does it matter?
Let's continue with the individual thief analogy. If I were to steal a significant percentage of your income from you for decades, while assuring you that I'll give some of it back to you under certain conditions in the future (because I think you're incapable of managing your own money properly, and I just want to take care of you), and you've stated your opposition to my doing so, and in fact have pretty much dedicated your life to publicly opposing me, would it matter if you reached a point in your life where you really ~needed~ the money back instead of just ~wanting~ it back? If you had avoided dealing with me as much as possible because I'm a thief, would you suddenly be a hypocrite if your survival depended on your coming to me to ask for your money back?
Also, do you agree that my taking large sums of money from you for decades would cause you to be less prepared for old age and illness than you would be if I weren't confiscating your wealth? In others words, if it weren't for my intruding into your life and finances so as to "take care of you," and into the entire economy of the nation, you wouldn't be in a situation of need, no? If I were to steal your money and then, toward the end of your life say, "See, you don't have enough money, and that just proves that people can't manage their money, so it's a damn good thing that I've been here to take care of you," would you find me to be making an intelligent and reasonable argument, or would you just punch me in the face?
Your argument in the previous post that you linked to was that Rand hadn't sufficiently prepared, and that she found herself in a situation that she hadn't expected. Do you have anything to support that opinion? Do you have any financial documentation which shows that she was on the verge of poverty, or unable to pay her bills? Are you suggesting that you have reason to believe that Leonard Peikoff inherited a paltry estate (perhaps nothing but a few rows of empty booze bottles for "mixing paints," a container of old leftover stroganoff, and a litter box full of cat poop)?
J
Jonathan:
>Does it matter?
I think it does.
To start with, the "thief" analogy isn't really accurate - it's actually closer to someone compelling you to buy an insurance policy of which you are the beneficiary. If this is "thievery", it's of a very strange kind, no? The moral consequences of this situation are therefore by no means as clearcut. That's why I think it's a bit misleading, and not worth getting too hung up on. So let's just park that for now.
As to whether I have anything to support my view that Rand and Frank needed the government support, Pryor claims that Rand reluctantly "saw the necessity for both her and Frank", even if she didn't ever actually agree with Pryor's arguments in favour of it - arguments which, incidentally, included Rand's own argument about entitlement! So we have the interesting situation of Rand being reluctant to accept her own argument. (I have no reason to consider Pryor a liar - she apparently had a good deal of "respect and affection" for Rand.) So it seems to me the case is not quite a simple as people like yourself and Walter Block over at mises.org have tried to argue. So I think it's worth trying to unpack why.
One obvious reason is, as Pryor argued, that "Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it." And recall that Frank was in far worse health than her, and that he was dependent on Rand financially, and had been for many years. This is a key difference between Rand and Isabel Paterson, who lived off her investments and never even opened the envelope containing her Social Security card - Paterson did not have an increasingly dependent husband to take care of.
Hence there is good reason to believe the O'Connors needed to take the money, more than simply wanted it.
Now, if you accept this is a reasonable supposition based on the evidence at hand, we then should see if this distinction really does explain some of the more puzzling aspects of this story.
I'm don't find the whole issue over whether Rand was consistent in the least interesting. Indeed, it seems to miss the most vital point in the case. The fact is, whether Rand choose to take medicare or to shun it, either path would have been entirely "consistent" with her philosophy. If she choose to take the money, she could point to her article on scholarships as justification. If she refused the money, she could have said something along the lines of: "Well, Howard Roark/John Galt wouldn't have accepted such money." Either way, her admirers would have been satisfied with her decision and the accompanying justification. The problem here is that Rand's philosophy doesn't actually give much guidance as to how to proceed: it merely provides convenient rationalizations to justify whatever route one ultimately takes. Like all philosophical moralities, its really mostly about justification, not guidance.
Jonathan,
Thankfully, Dan has found the analogy that I was looking for but was unable to present when making my arguments. Broadly speaking, government services, from the point of view of their advocates, are broadly a form of insurance, where the benefit is from many people paying into the program and just one person paying in does not have the same effect. The same argument is inherent in government taxes etc. The reason why you have to force people to pay for the services is that their social benefit outweighs the cost of forcing individuals to opt in.
Now this does not mean that there are no problems with Social Security and Medicare as currently constructed or that the cost of forcing individuals to opt in might not be sufficiently deleterious in this or that instance. However, some people would like to decide this on principle by using inflammatory rhetoric that builds into their arguments the conclusions they are looking for and claiming their arguments are complete, but I believe the issue is far more complicated than that. It is by no means obvious that many people have the discipline or intelligence to organize themselves without something like a government, or that coercion is not a necessary part of social organization. And if this social organization is better than what would obtain without it, then is it truly deleterious just because coercion is required to obtain it?
Ah, so after I said to you, "Frankly, I have about as much confidence in people's characterizations of Rand's views as I do in Rand's characterizations of others' views," you thought that it was "reasonable" to conclude that I don't trust non-Objectivists? Dipshit.
Displaying skepticism towards one party but not another is not reasonable. But just as you have formed opinions about me that go beyond what I have written, so have I about you. I really believe that skepticism about anyone's presentation of his or her views is always in order because people often present one viewpoint just for convenience and at a point in time. If one polled them later, they could find another rationalization at another point in time. So what you wrote in this case allows you to conveniently trust Rand's self-reporting over Pryor's reporting of Rand's views, when both should be treated with skepticism and neither should be accorded weight in a way that decides the argument in favor of one or the other in advance of considering as wide a swathe of evidence as possible. If you have any skepticism about what Rand's intent when she wrote, you have yet to show it.
Actually, it doesn't "help." See, someone's voting to preserve programs would be an example of someone ~supporting~ the existence of the programs, not opposing them. How did you miss that part of the excerpt from Rand that I posted?!!! You really have difficulty following even the simplest discussions, don't you? Wow, what a waste of time this is turning out to be.
I'm not sure whether you understood what I wrote, and since you are largely unable to explain points of view antithetical to yours in terms that your opponents would agree with, I don't have time to waste decoding the source of your confusion.
Since Dan's analogy is more in line with how most people view Social Security etc., then I think that is the view you really should reconcile with your arguments if you want to be taken seriously beyond the political/philosophical fringe.
Either way, her admirers would have been satisfied with her decision and the accompanying justification. The problem here is that Rand's philosophy doesn't actually give much guidance as to how to proceed: it merely provides convenient rationalizations to justify whatever route one ultimately takes. Like all philosophical moralities, its really mostly about justification, not guidance.
Agreed, as inconsistent as my writing on this point may make it seem that I disagree.
My issue here is that the actual debate with Pryor doesn't support the viewpoint of those who make Rand's acceptance of Medicare sound like a no-brainer derivation from Rand's earlier writings.
@ Dan:
"If this is 'thievery', it's of a very strange kind, no?"
Yes, it's a strange kind of thievery, one in which the thief expects to benefit indirectly and under the pretense of convincing enough people that he and they are not really stealing. What the thief is doing is attempting to disguise his actions as moral and therefore increase his number of accomplices.
"The moral consequences of this situation are therefore by no means as clearcut. That's why I think it's a bit misleading, and not worth getting too hung up on. So let's just park that for now."
How about if I rewrite my analogy so that it refers to compelled "insurance" rather than theft:
If I were to take a significant percentage of your income from you for decades, while assuring you that I'll give some of it back to you under certain conditions in the future (because I think you're incapable of managing your own money properly, and I just want to take care of you), and you've stated your opposition to my doing so, and in fact have pretty much dedicated your life to publicly opposing me, would it matter if you reached a point in your life where you really ~needed~ the money back instead of just ~wanting~ it back? If you had avoided dealing with me as much as possible because I'm an "insurance" compeller, would you suddenly be a hypocrite if your survival depended on your coming to me to ask for your money back?
Calling it "insurance" doesn't change anything.
J
@ Dan:
"As to whether I have anything to support my view that Rand and Frank needed the government support, Pryor claims that Rand reluctantly 'saw the necessity for both her and Frank', even if she didn't ever actually agree with Pryor's arguments in favour of it - arguments which, incidentally, included Rand's own argument about entitlement!"
I'm aware of what Pryor claimed. I asked if you had any financial documentation or anything else that would qualify as actual evidence to support your view.
"So we have the interesting situation of Rand being reluctant to accept her own argument."
No, we don't. We have a person, decades after the event, reporting her interpretation of what happened. We don't know what Rand's actual thoughts and responses were. All that Pryor has given is a description of her own side of the conversation. There's nothing about what Rand said, or what her arguments were.
Despite believing that I have the right to get my money back from government, I'll ~always~ be hesitant or reluctant to apply for government programs for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) the excessive paper work that is usually involved, and the distinct possibility that I may have to comply with conditions that are unacceptable to me, or that my applying for government programs could inadvertently invite government into my life and finances in ways that I don't want or expect. Rand could have had similar or other legitimate concerns that you're not thinking of in your state of wanting to believe the worst about her and that she must have been "reluctant to accept her own argument."
J
@ Dan:
"I have no reason to consider Pryor a liar - she apparently had a good deal of 'respect and affection' for Rand."
Lying is not the only option. Pryor could have been mistaken. She could have misinterpreted Rand (I'll remind you of how easily you misinterpreted me earlier in this discussion and blatantly mischaracterized my position). She could have had false memories of the events and romantically cast herself as the heroic intellect and teacher who taught the famous novelist and philosopher a lesson, which is quite common when people who are talking about events that happened decades ago, especially when the involve famous people and recorded interviews.
"One obvious reason is, as Pryor argued, that 'Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it.'"
That's Pryor's opinion. We don't know if Rand found it convincing. We don't know if Pryor knew how much Rand's books had earned or how much money she had. Pryor's statement makes her sound as if she hadn't the slightest clue how much money books can earn. Doctors do not "cost an awful lot more than books can earn."
"Hence there is good reason to believe the O'Connors needed to take the money, more than simply wanted it. Now, if you accept this is a reasonable supposition based on the evidence at hand, we then should see if this distinction really does explain some of the more puzzling aspects of this story."
You haven't presented actual evidence. You've presented hearsay, and you've interpreted it in the way that you wanted to interpret it.
J
@Laj:
"Displaying skepticism towards one party but not another is not reasonable."
I agree. I'd be just as skeptical of Rand's assertions about what others believed as I am about Pryor's assertions of what Rand believed, especially if I had access to written statements which showed that those others believed something quite different from what Rand was asserting that they believed.
"So what you wrote in this case allows you to conveniently trust Rand's self-reporting over Pryor's reporting of Rand's views..."
It's not an issue of "conveniently" trusting anyone. It's an issue of the reality that one person cannot be inside another's head. See, if you were to tell me that you believe X, and Dan were to tell me that you believe Y, it's not an issue of "convenience" for me to recognize the fact that you know more about what you believe than Dan does. Get it?
J
It's not an issue of "conveniently" trusting anyone. It's an issue of the reality that one person cannot be inside another's head. See, if you were to tell me that you believe X, and Dan were to tell me that you believe Y, it's not an issue of "convenience" for me to recognize the fact that you know more about what you believe than Dan does. Get it?
Actually, no, I don't. You don't have to be in someone's head to disagree with whether they understand themselves as long as you are considering other evidence. Yes, you can start with the initial position that it is more plausible that I know more about what I believe that Dan does, but any claim about what I believe must be considered in light of as much evidence as can be brought to bear. In fact, if people were so knowledgeable about themselves, psychologists of all stripes would be out of business. It is quite possible that on the basis of other evidence, Dan has noticed things that my evaluation/self-reporting has for whatever reason refused to capture, or that other actions I have ignored in my claim have been used by Dan for evidence. The self is not always unified, so it is quite possible to express certain things consciously, but to harbor conflicting views unconsciously.
Jonathan:
>How about if I rewrite my analogy so that it refers to compelled "insurance" rather than theft: If I were to take a significant percentage of your income from you for decades, while assuring you that I'll give some of it back to you under certain conditions...
Ah, you see you're getting rather attached to your argument in the same way you accuse me of being...;-) As a result your rewrite overlooks that in a program like Medicare for example, like any insurance program, there's also a good chance the "thief" will give you far more money back than you ever put in, and at a time in your life when you crucially need it. 'Tis a strange kind of "thievery" indeed!
I repeat: the moral consequences of this sort of thing are therefore not as clearcut as you seem to think. It is actually a rather ambiguous situation.
But if you are determined not to accept this, that's fine. Further, if you don't regard Pryor as reliable, that's fine too. These seem to be the two points your criticisms of my post rest on.
However, just because I do accept this moral complexity, and also think that Pryor is probably reliable, I don't think it follows that I am therefore filled with irrational hatred...;-) In fact I think accepting both is quite reasonable and very far from irrational. My views follow from this acceptance, hence our difference.(I also don't mean to imply that your rejection of these basic premises is irrational either. Reasonable people can disagree!).
While I like a lot of what you've written elsewhere, J, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
"As a result your rewrite overlooks that in a program like Medicare for example, like any insurance program, there's also a good chance the 'thief' will give you far more money back than you ever put in, and at a time in your life when you crucially need it. 'Tis a strange kind of 'thievery' indeed!"
Um, yes, that has been my point: The ~purpose~ of such compelled programs is to forcefully redistribute wealth and give far more money to certain people than they paid in (and even far more than they would have earned in interest if they had been left to invest their money as they saw fit), and the purpose is also to try to give the appearance that the program is not theft. The thieves (the politicians who create the programs and laws) buy the votes of their accomplices, and they all pretend that they're not stealing by using the lame excuse that their victims are also getting some of the money and therefore benefitting as well.
"I repeat: the moral consequences of this sort of thing are therefore not as clearcut as you seem to think. It is actually a rather ambiguous situation."
I don't think it's ambiguous at all. In fact, you seem to be motivated by one thing or another to ~not~ understand it, despite how simple it is. What's the Upton Sinclair quote? "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" It seems as if some variation of that is in play here.
"But if you are determined not to accept this, that's fine."
Did you miss the part of this discussion where I agreed that Rand would be a thief if she had taken more than was taken from her? Of the two of us, I'm not the one who is "determined not to accept" anything.
"However, just because I do accept this moral complexity, and also think that Pryor is probably reliable, I don't think it follows that I am therefore filled with irrational hatred...;-)"
I agree. I would only say that you're being irrational if you believe that Pryor's statements are enough for you to conclude that Rand was a hypocrite for taking Social Security and Medicare. I think you're irrational if you believe that you can know with absolute certainty what Rand's views were based on hearing Pryor's interpretation.
"In fact I think accepting both is quite reasonable and very far from irrational. My views follow from this acceptance, hence our difference.(I also don't mean to imply that your rejection of these basic premises is irrational either. Reasonable people can disagree!). While I like a lot of what you've written elsewhere, J, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one."
Sure, that's fine. We can agree to disagree. So, no hard feelings, and I like a lot of what ~you've~ written elsewhere.
Cheers,
J
I really think that this criticism of rand misses the point. It really doesn’t matter if rand is being consistent. The larger point is the opposition to programs like Medicare and social security, and it's not even whether those programs are effective or inefficient, its whether the state should provide those services. What would objectivists have us do with the millions upon millions who did not plan for old age, whether through short sightedness or the inability to do so?
KC
"What would objectivists have us do with the millions upon millions who did not plan for old age, whether through short sightedness or the inability to do so?"
What would Objectivists have "us" do? I think the answer would be that no one is stopping you from putting your money where your mouth is. If you really care that much about "short-sighted" old folks, then volunteer your time and money and do something about it. Take them into your home. I'd bet that you don't care THAT much, do you? You only "care" about such things when others are flipping the bill, right?
Personally, I think that creating government programs which absolve people of the responsibility of saving and planning only results in more "short-sightedness" as you call it.
J
I pay social security and Medicare, so I am flipping the bill and as I'm in my mid 30's I suspect that I probably wont see a return on my investment, but that wasn't really the point of my post. Regardless about how much or how little I care for people who didn’t budget for old age I'm sure I couldn’t have that much effect on the problem. You may be right to a certain degree that programs like this encourage short-sightedness, but significant increases in life expectancy and rapidly advancing medical technologies over the last century in addition to the exploding costs of medical care make saving for retirement/end of life care less realistic for a vast majority of people. My point was that I, and apparently a large number of others, don’t see it as a problem that the state handles programs like this. Typically the objectivist response is pretty similar to your response, "If I care so much why don’t I pay for everyone?". While I'm sure this line of reasoning wins lots and lots of arguments, it actually doesn’t address the real problem.
KC
What would Objectivists have "us" do? I think the answer would be that no one is stopping you from putting your money where your mouth is. If you really care that much about "short-sighted" old folks, then volunteer your time and money and do something about it. Take them into your home. I'd bet that you don't care THAT much, do you? You only "care" about such things when others are flipping the bill, right?
Why do you assume the issue is moral and not practical? You don't have to care for people to realize that if you don't do something to keep them comfortable, they may bring their discomfort to you.
Jonathan:
>Um, yes, that has been my point: The ~purpose~ of such compelled programs is to forcefully redistribute wealth and give far more money to certain people than they paid in (and even far more than they would have earned in interest if they had been left to invest their money as they saw fit), and the purpose is also to try to give the appearance that the program is not theft.
All insurance policies redistribute wealth, so that's not really an objection. The reason some categories of insurance, such as health, can often work better using compulsory channels (such as taxation) is that the problem of adverse selection is thought to be to be greater than the counterweight insurance problem of moral hazard in these particular areas.
Again: if it was just about "stealing" politicians would surely be trying to make all forms of insurance compulsory. They don't - just areas like the above that are particularly problematic.
Just to add to the above, I'm generally skeptical about conspiracy theories of history like Objectivism or Vulgar Marxism. Capitalism is not a giant conspiracy to steal from the truly productive in the economy, and neither is government. Sure, there are always the bad actors in positions of power. But there are also always real problems that explain why policies are shaped the way they are too. It's often question of not so much finding some magical answer as deciding which set of problems you prefer.
That's why so much of Objectivism, like Vulgar Marxism, is just wishful thinking. Which is why when confronted with a specific practical issue - say, funding her minarchist state - that comes with an intractable economic problem attached - the free rider problem - Rand can only waffle briefly before postponing it to be solved in some unspecified way somewhere in a future Objectivist infinity where everyone is virtuous.
Laj:
>You don't have to care for people to realize that if you don't do something to keep them comfortable, they may bring their discomfort to you.
One of my favourite quotes is from Solon the Wise, the reformer of Athens who set the stage for the Greek golden age:
"Public evil enters the house of each man, the gates of his courtyard cannot keep it out, it leaps over the high wall, let him flee to a corner of his bed chamber, it will certainly find him out."
@KC:
"I pay social security and Medicare, so I am flipping the bill..."
Yes, I know how the argument works: I'm supposed to ignore the amounts that individuals pay, right? When you pay pennies compared to others' hundreds of dollars, I'm supposed to treat you all as equally "flipping the bill," and therefore when the penny-payers want to control how the money is spent, I'm supposed to go along with you in pretending that you've contributed controlling shares?
"Typically the objectivist response is pretty similar to your response, 'If I care so much why don’t I pay for everyone?'"
That wasn't my response, nor have I ever seen any Objectivists say that. I didn't suggest that you should "pay for everyone." I'm suggesting that you and everyone else who claim to be concerned about the poor, the sick and the elderly should put your money where your mouths are if you truly believe what you're saying.
J
@Dan:
"All insurance policies redistribute wealth, so that's not really an objection."
Did you miss the part where I wrote "FORCEFULLY redistribute wealth"? Unlike your notion of government "insurance" programs, private insurance policies (and all other forms of private activity, including risky activities such as gambling) are entered into ~voluntarily~. In a free market, people who have equal risks pay equal premiums for the same private insurance policies, and the wealthiest 5 percent are not forced to pay 80 to 90 percent of the premiums while nearly 50 percent of the customers are paying nothing or next to nothing.
"The reason some categories of insurance, such as health, can often work better..."
Better by what standard? Better for whom? For those who want freebies and who don't want responsibility for their choices and behaviors?
"...using compulsory channels (such as taxation) is that the problem of adverse selection is thought to be to be greater than the counterweight insurance problem of moral hazard in these particular areas."
I'm not sure that I'm following you here. Government regulations ~cause~ the problem of adverse selection -- they prevent insurers from considering relevant choices and behaviors of customers (and therefore also encourage more risky behavior). Are you saying that your solution to problems caused by government interference into the market is even more government?
"Again: if it was just about 'stealing' politicians would surely be trying to make all forms of insurance compulsory. They don't - just areas like the above that are particularly problematic."
I think many politicians would love to make insurance compulsory. Obamacare does it. Many politicians would love to control every aspect of our lives (for our own good, or course).
J
"Public evil enters the house of each man, the gates of his courtyard cannot keep it out, it leaps over the high wall, let him flee to a corner of his bed chamber, it will certainly find him out."
You seem to be saying that your ethical code is "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!": When Public Evil forces his way into your house, it is virtuous to talk him out of pillaging your modest home in favor of joining you in pillaging the mansion down the street instead?
J
"Did you miss the part where I wrote "FORCEFULLY redistribute wealth"?"
Again: Choosing to live in a country indicates a certain acquiescence to its terms and conditions. Until the guards are standing at the wall with the guns forbidding you to leave, your choice to remain signifies your willingness to put up with things like taxes, or at the very least oppose them via the governing system. You are free to seek a better deal with, say, Canada, or some nice spot in Europe. Until your choices are actually removed, the use of "forcefully" is a hollow bit of hyperbole.
Jonathan:
>Did you miss the part where I wrote "FORCEFULLY redistribute wealth"?
No, I move from the opening generality of the first sentence to this subsidiary point in my second sentence.
>I'm not sure that I'm following you here. Government regulations ~cause~ the problem of adverse selection...
Clearly you aren't following here, as you seem to be under the wrong impression of how the problem comes about. Adverse selection can emerge in markets such as insurance without Government regulation being involved. That's because it's fundamentally an information problem, not a regulatory one.
Do you understand the conventional distinction between a typical market exchange and an adversely selected one?
Do we all buy the libertarian argument that the initiation of "force" is necessarily wrong? I definitely do not, or at the very least, think that it's acceptance is an impractical assumption when discussing practical morality.
"Do we all buy the libertarian argument that the initiation of "force" is necessarily wrong?"
No - and also, what I'm suggesting is that what is being claimed as "force" is not actually force, at least not as most people understand it.
I've dealt with the "forceful redistribution" argument before, and it always seems to be presented as the idea that the aggrieved taxpayer has no choice but to comply and pay or, in essence, stormtroopers will kick in their door and shoot them.
But it is not a simple two-option choice. One could avoid taxes altogether. One could take up residence in some country where there are no taxes at all. (I don't know offhand where that would be, no.) One could remain in their home country but go "off the grid", living in some remote location and avoiding attention, and simply ignore the outside, tax-happy world. You could even refuse to pay taxes in protest, and deal with the legal consequences, as some have from time to time.
There are multiple choices - but most of us find these choices unpalatable in some way. I don't want to go live in the woods like the Unabomber. I enjoy the modern conveniences of life in the USA.
Taxes are some of the prices I pay to live in this country. I am willing to submit to the tax code in order to maintain a certain level of prosperity. As I alluded to in my earlier food analogy, the fact that I would prefer a perfect Star Trek society (where every citizen's needs are provided for with near-infinite sources of energy) in no way entitles me to have that society come into being at my whim.
When you make the willing choice between which of these options you value more - no taxes or full US citizenship, in this case - I feel you abrogate the right to call the consequences of your choice "force". A choice between imperfect options is still a choice. The only coercion rests in one's own comfort and desires.
CW,
I think you made the Objectivist bite the bullet. Objectivists always disparage union rights by saying "if they don't like the way they are being treated, they are free to leave."
When you logically extend that argument to a nation, maybe they begin to see how hard it is to follow their own advice.
Perhaps they should read The Things They Carried and see just how good people can feel obligated to stay in terrible situations. Rather than blame the victim and say "the secretary is free to leave if her boss sexually harasses her," they could look at the psychological complexity of uprooting one's self from an environment where one at least has some freedom (a sexist corporation, a country that taxes for social security).
That libertarian soundbite that "without the boss, the secretary wouldn't have a job, so he has the right to sexually harass her" could equally apply to the unhappy Objectivist:
"Without America (or most Western nations), the objectivist wouldn't have the freedom to protest in the first place; they wouldn't have the standard of living to give them a computer and free time to blog on. If they don't like the country they can get out!"
That doesn't sound very compassionate, does it? But then again, compassion is evil, right? It doesn't sound very practical either. Neither does finding a workplace in America that doesn't involve sexist men.
At least with America, you can lobby to change the law concerning taxes- yet the libertarian would never support the government creating federal anti-sexual harassment laws, because the boss owns the business and writes its policies as his property. Sounds like a double standard to me. I guess it isn't in the mind of an objectivist who values freedom over fairness, as if it had to be all-or-nothing.
Personally, I value freedom that humanizes, because what is the right to life worth when you are treated less than human?
"Do you understand the conventional distinction between a typical market exchange and an adversely selected one?"
Yes, I understand the concept of adverse selection. My point was that businesses can easily counter the problem when not impeded or prevented by government from doing so. When free from irrational regulatory adverse selection, businesses tend to solve such problems very quickly, creatively and effectively.
J
Jonathan:
>When free from irrational regulatory adverse selection, businesses tend to solve such problems very quickly, creatively and effectively.
Again, the problem of health insurance is fundamentally an example of non-regulatory adverse selection. From your above comment I don't think you're quite clear on this. So let's walk through it.
In a typical market transaction, a seller is looking for the buyer who might most want to buy her product, and vice versa. (I can testify to the empirical truth of this basic theoretical point; I own an advertising agency and we spend a lot of time establishing who such likely buyers are for our clients). New car manufacturers spend a lot of time trying to attract people who really want to buy a new car. The incentives all point the right way: the buyer gets a nice new car and the manufacturer makes a profit, everyone's happy.
In an adversely selected market we find ourselves with quite a different proposition. The buyer who is most likely to want, say, health insurance is the person who is facing major health problems herself. The seller, on the other hand, far from trying to seek out this likely buyer as they normally would, would prefer to avoid them entirely as they will have to pay out on their policy, thus making them unprofitable. Instead, perversely, (or adversely) the seller would far prefer customers who are unlikely to need their product: people in great health. Unfortunately, these people are the ones least likely to want to buy it!
Notice how the basic incentives that make markets so effective and creative 95% of the time in this case flipped into reverse. And how much government regulatory interference has been involved so far? Zero. The problem is inherent in this particular market category, which happens to be a special case. Pity it's such an important one.
Anyway, hopefully it's clear that we have a case of what is primarily non-regulatory adverse selection on our hands. It provides the basic conditions for a rare market failure, which only get worse as we add the layers of complexity that the category generates. We can discuss these of course, but it's important we agree on this fundamental issue before we move on. Ok?
Let's also briefly touch on some differences and similarities between health insurance and other insurance markets.
Other insurance markets - say automotive, or house insurance - try to get around adverse selection by a combination of incentives and taking advantage of state regulatory environments. For example, they might offer no-claims bonuses to encourage you to drive more safely (Or, as is more common, not to claim over minor incidents). They might refuse to insure certain categories of drivers - for example, unsupervised young people. They might charge you a fortune to insure your house if you decide to build in a flood-prone area. This can help overcome some of the problems with the adverse dynamic. Also, these areas are typically highly regulated, thus removing a lot of risk for the insurance companies in advance and thus lowering costs. For example, there's driving licenses, traffic police, control systems like traffic lights, and of course an entire legal system of road user rules. Similarly, housing rules stop people building certain types of risky housing, with certain types of materials or in certain high risk areas.
Of course, there's nowhere near the same regulatory intervention around personal health (for example, there are not squads of health officers cruising the streets pulling people over for dangerous eating..,;-)) Further, a lot of health problems appear to be genetically heritable. While you could move to a less flood prone neighbourhood if your insurance company won't cover you, or buy a safer car, you can't do the same with your parents! So many of the work-arounds we find in other types of insurance are simply not there. With me so far?
Post a Comment