In Galt’s Gulch? Nope. People don’t get welfare and failing corporations don’t get subsidies.
Only if you define “needy” as “those in need who expect others to take care of them”. But that is only a subset of the “needy”. There are plenty of folks who are needy, but don’t expect anyone to take care of them.
That’s not at all the impression I get. If there are portions of her work in which she characterizes all people who need assistance from others as lazy, unthinking, and obnoxious, I’d ask you to cite them. I haven’t read a lot of Rand, and what I have read was years ago, but I don’t recall her describing the disabled, or the elderly, or orphans, or other needy people in those terms.
Are there portions of her work that differentiate between those that need assistance and those that are lazy, unthinking and obnoxious? Any such passages would do much to clean up any perceived notion that she lumped them all together.
There’s this, from “What Is Capitalism?”
So, Rand did distinguish between those who were needy because they wouldn’t provide for themselves, those who were physically unable to do so, and those who were made needy by the lack of jobs available to them.
I never read “What Is Capitalism?” Ok, she wasn’t cruel or heartless, although I still reserve the right to call her a bad observer and sloppy thinker who shouldn’t be called a philosopher.
There is a freakin problem if the attitude you are talking about is widespread. You got a cite for that notion? The fact that you MIGHT (:rolleyes:) have once met a guy sometime that thought he was entitled to welfare because he was black means nothing. It is no more meaningful that the epidemic of welfare queens that Reagan imagined.
The moral shaming is being compelled by Rand’s acolytes cutting the social safety. The moral shaming is the result of so many 1%ers in recent history threatening to fire people if Obama gets reelected or if we take a step towards universal healthcare. The moral shaming is the result of some 1%ers bitching and moaning about how unfair their life is as they cut food stamps for the poor and needy.
“misfortune is not a claim to slave labor”
She had no sympathy for those who were truly needy as a result of great misfortune. She would not have imposed taxes to stop orphans from starving. Why should anyone be a slave to their misfortune, what right do they have to consume?
Did I say I “might have once met a guy?” No. I met a group of black people who lived in Gary, Indiana who felt this way.
I was simply making the point that you don’t need to here it from a conservative to get this idea. Did I say it was a widespread mentality for all people receiving government aid? Hell no. Was I addressing how conservatives MIGHT (:rolleyes:) be convincing good people not to help the needy?? Haha, you’re damn right I was. It’s a crock of shit.
Do you have a cite for the notion that conservatives are convincing all the good people not to help the needy? :rolleyes:
As for my cite. Check the other great debate topic titled “Reparations Revisited,” then try and tell me there aren’t lazy people out there who just want to take advantage of the system.
That’s a substantially meaningless distinction, however.
Since, in a free society, all wealth is rightfully social anyway (you’d know this if you didn’t hate freedom so much), the idea of “forcing” anyone to help anyone else is reality-free: each person is entitled to his or her equal share of social wealth, and no coercion is involved as long as no one tries to steal from those who have less by taking more.
Ayn Rand was full of shit, capitalism (especially of the sort Rand envisioned) is a wholly oppressive mode of socioeconomic organization, and taxation is in fact not theft (in fact, it’s the opposite: since each individual is entitled to an equal share of social wealth, those who have more than the social mean have stolen from those who have less, which means that taxation of this excess for the purposes of redistribution is actually a means of restitution).
But the whole “she took Medicare, what a hypocrite!” nonsense is not a fair critique at all.
To be a hypocrite, one’s actions must be (unrepentantly–hypocrisy is qualitatively different from moral weakness of which one acknowledges its wrongness upon reflection) inconsistent with one’s stated virtues as understood by that person on their own terms.
Rational people know that the “taxation is theft” argument is bullshit and morally bankrupt. However, Ayn Rand, not being a rational person, sincerely believed it to be true. Thus, it’s certainly fair–within the context of her virtues, as she understood them and on their own terms–for her to take back what she believed had been wrongly taken from her.
Especially since, in a 1966 essay, she addressed exactly this issue (the specific context was federal student aid, but the transferability to Medicare should be obvious) and argued that it was acceptable for exactly the above-mentioned reason.
Ayn Rand was full of shit. But she’s still entitled to a fair critique of her statements and actions.
Nope, it’s one we draw every day, in countless ways. Lying is generally agreed to be wrong, but we don’t want laws forcing people to tell the truth or face criminal punishment.* Going to your kid’s birthday parties is generally agreed to be good, but we don’t want laws forcing people to attend their kids’ birthday parties or face criminal punishment.
- Except, perhaps, in a few, very limited, circumstances.
Yeah, sure, neat. That’ll be highly persuasive to the hundreds of people that accept your subjective premises. To others, compelling an action with the threat of imprisonment is, indeed, forcing people to perform that action.
Because her goal was to try and change that system so that she would not have to do so. If we do not denounce her ideas as immoral, they might be implemented.
And I still do not see how refusing to force people to do something will somehow guarantee that it gets done. If you hold that X is the correct action, but people don’t want to do X, no matter how much you try to convince them, what can you do but force X to happen? Is that not how every single law works? For example, we hold that murder is bad. Yet there are some people who continue to murder. Therefore we make a law to force you not to murder.
My argument against Rand has always been that, if you don’t force it, it just won’t get done. In a capitalistic society, there will always be a constant pressure to reduce costs, which will have a negative affect on one’s voluntary contributions to anything. The people who have the most to give will be the least likely to do so–heck, they already are, since they go through whatever hoops they can to reduce their taxes. And that’s actually considered normal.
Similarly, without forcing the issue, avoiding voluntary contributions will also be considered normal. “Why shouldn’t a company reduce its costs any way it can?” is something people already say.
You mean the topic where Honesty presents a crazy idea and every response basically says “you’re nuts”
I have no evidence that Honesty is lazy, I think he’s mad (in both senses of the word) but you seem awful quick to equate any sense of entitlement to laziness.
That’s different from denouncing her as heartless and callous, is it not? Criticize her ideas, or anyone else’s, all you like. Moral condemnation of a person or people has different criteria, in my book, starting with some need for actual harm done.
That’s a fine argument, and one I don’t disagree with. Note that it didn’t require condemning anyone as heartless or callous, and that it assumed Rand et al were arguing in good faith and were honest about their beliefs.
It’s not compelling an action–it’s compelling a lack of action, namely that one refrain from stealing others’ equal share of social wealth to which they are entitled.
If those who care give more of their accumulated resources to those in need how can anyone but the selfish succeed? How does that achieve anything BUT incentivize selfishness?
Lol, yupp, that’s the one.
I’m not sure that Honesty is indeed lazy either, but he is a prime example of the mentality I was referring to.
Now that we’ve established that there are people out there who believe they are entitled to government support, all you have to do is then extend that to include people who are lazy and want to live for free.
Wah-lah, you have a conservative’s worst nightmare. 
Maybe I am quick to equate any sense of entitlement with laziness. That doesn’t mean I don’t think there are legitimately needy people out there. I’m just highly skeptical as to how they became needy, and why they have remained needy.
If you are capable, it is not difficult to get a job, regardless of extenuating circumstances.
IDC if you are a convicted felon, or if you don’t have a car, or if you aren’t really all that bright, there is almost certainly a way to find employment. Anyone who remains unemployed under those circumstances is probably either lazy and/or ignorant.
It’s those who reject entitlement, who are the lazy ones.
Because, let’s face it, those who are in difficult straits are victims of society–which means it’s our fault they’re there, not theirs.
Which includes those like you who point fingers and victim-blame.
But pointing fingers and victim-blaming is a hell of a lot easier than getting up off your ass and doing the hard and difficult work of building a better society so that you’re not victimizing others anymore.
That’s true in a sense. If you are entitled, then by all means, claim your entitlement… elsewise you’ll let it go to waste…
I’m sure that’s true in some cases, but certainly not all of them can blame their “neediness” on society. I think the point you missed in my previous post is that I’m referring to a pretty specific group of people.
What part of what I said was “finger-pointing?” I basically said, if you CAN work and need to work, you SHOULD be working. I even acknowledged that their are people out there who legitimately deserve government aid. That’s quite obvious. If I was “finger-pointing” at all, it would be towards people who claim they shouldn’t have to work, and the government should pay for their living expenses, because their ancestors were slaves.