Ayn Rand and the needy

[Steely_Dan_Fan]

@YoungKusher

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.

It’s those who are particularly social victims.

What part of what I said was “finger-pointing?” I basically said, if you CAN work and need to work, you SHOULD be working.

You’re wrong, though–they shouldn’t have to. They’re entitled to an equal share of social wealth simply for existing.

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.

Exactly, you’re victim-blaming and being lazy by refusing to do the work to ensure that these people get the equal share of social wealth to which they (just like you or I) are entitled to by the mere fact of their existence.

[coffeecat]

@YoungKusher

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.

How do you explain a recession? (I already know how Ayn Rand explained them.) Do people become cyclically lazy and ignorant? If there are 100,000,000 workers and only 90,000,000 jobs, 10,000,000 people will be out of work, period.

[Human_Action]

@Steely_Dan_Fan

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 one accepts your premises, which are, after all, subjective opinions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@YoungKusher

Lol, yupp, that’s the one.

OK so can we say it is a rare and fringe attitude?

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.

Hey there are gay folks who think catholic churches should be forced to perfrom gay marriages. Thats no reason to oppose gay marriage, if its a fringe attitude, one that we have no obligation to appease.

If you are capable, it is not difficult to get a job, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

I agree. Extended unemployment benefits should have been cut a long time ago. After a year of unemployment, you should just acknowledge you are on welfare and apply for benefits.

@Steely_Dan_Fan

You’re wrong, though–they shouldn’t have to. They’re entitled to an equal share of social wealth simply for existing.

Equal share?!?! I think they are entitled so baseline entitlements to food/clothing/shelter, education and medical care but equal share?

Exactly, you’re victim-blaming and being lazy by refusing to do the work to ensure that these people get the equal share of social wealth to which they (just like you or I) are entitled to by the mere fact of their existence.

Equal opportunnity or equal share?

[msmith537]

@coffeecat

How do you explain a recession? (I already know how Ayn Rand explained them.) Do people become cyclically lazy and ignorant? If there are 100,000,000 workers and only 90,000,000 jobs, 10,000,000 people will be out of work, period.

What “period”? Why do you think there is some fixed amount of work to do and some finite number of jobs? Maybe there are 9,999,999 people out of work if I’m willing to take a slight pay cut? Or if I pick up a book and learn some new skill that’s in demand.

@Steely Dan Fan

You’re wrong, though–they shouldn’t have to. They’re entitled to an equal share of social wealth simply for existing.

So who should build your home for you? Or weave your clothes? Or gather your food? If everyone just “existed” instead of doing any work, we would all be dividing up equal shares of nothing.

[Evil_Captor]

@QuickSilver

We do. That’s why I’m not fussed about her getting social services which she paid into. The woman was a raging asshole. And yes, I’m aware that my reaction to her is visceral. But I’m not the least bit angry to see her benefit from a social system which she so obviously held in contempt. I’m sure the irony was not wasted on her.

Why waste all the vitriol on Rand, don’t her followers share her “qualities”?

[YoungKusher]

@Steely_Dan_Fan

You’re wrong, though–they shouldn’t have to. They’re entitled to an equal share of social wealth simply for existing.

I didn’t say that they aren’t entitled to some help to get them through a rough patch, but by no means is it okay for them to choose not to work out of laziness and/or ignorance. I understand that people work AND receive aid, that’s fine IMO, but don’t sit here and tell me that people “shouldn’t have to [work]” if they don’t want to… If you are capable, and you have needs, and those needs are best filled by you having a job, then you SHOULD get a job. It’s that simple; if you object to that as a basic principle for the average person, then you are just condoning a degenerate attitude IMO.

Exactly, you’re victim-blaming and being lazy by refusing to do the work to ensure that these people get the equal share of social wealth to which they (just like you or I) are entitled to by the mere fact of their existence.

I work 50 hours a week, and you don’t know anything about what I contribute to society, so don’t tell me I’M the one being lazy. According to your logic I could quit my job and just tap into this “social wealth” for no reason at all, and that would be perfectly acceptable by your standards…

Another thing, I’m not blaming the victim for what happened to their ancestors, I’m saying that regardless of that history, it is no reason to say, “I shouldn’t have to work. I should get a free pass because my great grandfather was a slave.” It is one thing to claim that you are predisposed to poverty due to your ancestral history and therefore need government aid, it is completely different (and wrong) to think you shouldn’t have to work because of it.

[YoungKusher]

@Damuri_Ajashi

OK so can we say it is a rare and fringe attitude?

Yes, it’s not widespread, but it certainly exists.

I agree. Extended unemployment benefits should have been cut a long time ago. After a year of unemployment, you should just acknowledge you are on welfare and apply for benefits.

That’s what I mean, I can understand if you were making $X a year, then got laid off and replaced by a cheaper, younger, college grad; that you might not be able to find a job that suits you right away. After a certain amount of time though, you need to take what you can get.

@coffeecat

How do you explain a recession? (I already know how Ayn Rand explained them.) Do people become cyclically lazy and ignorant? If there are 100,000,000 workers and only 90,000,000 jobs, 10,000,000 people will be out of work, period.

I think a key phrase in my comment that you quoted is. “Anyone who remains unemployed…” If you can’t find a job, even if you have to take something out of your field of work, in one years time, then (I’ll say it again) you are probably either lazy and/or ignorant.

[panache45]

@Steely_Dan_Fan

Exactly, you’re victim-blaming and being lazy by refusing to do the work to ensure that these people get the equal share of social wealth to which they (just like you or I) are entitled to by the mere fact of their existence.

Pssst. You may have everyone else fooled, but you don’t fool me for a minute.

[BigT]

@msmith537

What “period”? Why do you think there is some fixed amount of work to do and some finite number of jobs? Maybe there are 9,999,999 people out of work if I’m willing to take a slight pay cut? Or if I pick up a book and learn some new skill that’s in demand.

I really don’t understand your objection here. The amount of work may not be fixed, as there are many things that influence it, but I fail to see how learning a new skill or taking a new job with a pay cut would increase that amount. In fact, the causality seems to be completely backwards. You take a pay cut because there is a job available with lower pay. You choose to learn a new skill because there are job openings, as that’s what it means for a skill to be “in demand.” Neither of these actually increased the number of jobs in total.

So, to the person who is trying to find work, the number of available jobs is “fixed” in the sense that said person has no control over it. The analogy given in the post may not be perfect, as the job market is never completely saturated, but it does illustrate what happens in a recession. It’s not like people just suddenly become a lot less willing to work. Higher unemployment means that the demand for work has decreased relative to the supply of workers.