Very illuminating post. Quite unbelievable, but illuminating. :rolleyes:
Where do I assert anything about Ayn Rand’s medicare? I am making comments about medicare in general. John’s assertion seems irrelevant.
OK. I think we have established that there is no point in engaging with you on this MB. Enjoy the time you have here before you are banned.
Post #49…the post I originally replied to that started this entire sub-discussion. You said ‘Because you’re getting back more than the thief took from you. You are also getting some of the stuff the thief took from the current workforce.’, in the context of talking about Rand. If you just meant SS or Medicare in general then why did you quote my specific response of ‘Right. From the perspective of Rand, a good analogy would be ‘why shouldn’t I get some of my stuff back from the thief who took it if I’m given a chance to do so?’ Seems fairly straight forward to me, and I’m failing to see the hypocrisy.’, since I WASN’T just talking about SS or Medicare in general, obviously? If you want to make some story about Medicare in general paying more to the average person than they pay in then…well, wait…how about supporting THAT assertion then? Because I find it a bit hard to believe, since that would mean that the program would send out more than it takes in on average, which would mean it should have gone broke a long time ago.
Well it’s not like the conservatives just made that up. I’ve actually met people who claim entitlement to government aid because their ancestors were slaves. Some part of me wants to not disagree entirely with that sentiment, but when they are purposely not working and are just siphoning money off the system… there is a freakin problem.
So, all people are supposed to be sympathetic to the needy? And if people aren’t, tough because you are going to tax them regardless. Got it.
yes
Seems pointless to include all the moral shaming, then. Just collect the taxes and disperse the assistance, for so long and to such degree as the people’s duly elected representatives desire. Why the need to condemn Rand as heartless & callous, when she’s paying into the system the same as everyone else?
perhaps because she, and her followers, take such glee in doing so?
For its own sake, then? Fair enough. I still don’t get it, as shaming people is typically motivated by a desire to get them to change their behavior…and the Randians are behaving as you would like, paying taxes that support government assistance programs.
To each their own, I guess.
Well first let me say, I agree with you that shame and ridicule and other tactics are punitive and hostile and can’t be considered constructive in any way. Coercive maybe but not constructive. Having said that, I feel that if any one did deserve it it would be them.
Bettler. — Man soll die Bettler abschaffen: denn man ärgert sich, ihnen zu geben, und ärgert sich, ihnen nicht zu geben.
185
Beggars — We should get rid of beggars entirely, for whether we give money to them or not, we find ourselves quite annoyed.
Nietzsche, Morgenröthe, 1881
If someone seriously bitched about how the meddling government won’t let him use black babies as soccer balls, I’d call that person heartless and callous (at least!), even if he refrained from kicking babies purely out of fear of the law.
Rand was in fact very generous, especially to young people who shared her values, and weren’t getting assistance from the usual venues. To her, it was considered an act of integrity, much the same as supporting a politician who shared her values. And if you could afford it, it would have been hypocritical not to offer your support.
Even to a homeless person . . . if you can detect an intention of bettering his situation and starting to lead a free and productive life, you’d be a hypocrite not to offer your help, as long as you could afford it. But if he has no intention of taking responsibility for his life, and has a sense of entitlement, then he’d better look elsewhere for assistance.
Fair enough, but that’s really analogous. Rand didn’t believe that the needy shouldn’t be helped, just that no one should be* forced* to help them. That’s not a heartless or callous position, to my mind. A heartless or callous position would be that they shouldn’t be helped, not that they should be helped through a different organizational framework.
Absolutely. The key term there is “forced”. I resent greatly my tax dollars being taken from me and given to others as welfare. If I want to give my money to the needy, I should be the one making the choice as to how and where it is spent, not some politician who is buying votes with it.
Question for the sake of argument (i don’t actually believe anything this would lead to): Would you be okay with forcing payment via taxes if those that received welfare benefits could not vote while receiving welfare benefits?
You mean like how I’m forced to pay taxes that are used to prop up failing corporations in the form of subsidies?
Are you aware that more is spent on corporate welfare than individual?
And until the last few years, it was more than twice as much.
Yes, exactly like that. These statements add nothing to a discussion on Rand’s values. Have you read her books? She was entirely against crony capitalism, probably more than she was against welfare related redistribution. The biggest ‘villains’ in her books are those capitalists who use government handouts and laws to extract rents. Her solution to this is to reduce the size of government. You can debate whether or not that is a valid solution, but that is a separate issue.
Her books seem to say that the needy are lazy, unthinking, and obnoxious, so no reasonable person would voluntarily help them.