Ayn Rand Institute has been approved for the PPP.
That’s entirely consistent with her actual philosophy. She took Medicare rather than use her own resources to pay for her cancer treatment.
If I believe that the state has taken money from me immorally to fund medical care for everyone, it is not inconsistent of me to use that money for my own benefit when the occasion arises. I am not expected to be a martyr after the money was already taken by refusing to use it for its intended purpose.
If you have access to her medical records, so that you know how much was paid from what sources, I’m sure you can tell us whether she used more than she paid in. Because “everyone knows” something or other.
The case of PPP is different, and I am disturbed to know that there still is an Ayn Rand Institute.
Except that was the core of her beliefs. She didn’t want her money to go to help others yet decided it was OK for others to fund her medical care.
It also showed the lie that it was possible for everyone to save for old age and fund your own medical care.
Obviously, despite her considerable financial success as a writer, she still would have gone broke and she didn’t want to face what she advocated for others.
Accusations of Ayn Rand’s hypocrisy are arguably well founded. Still, the PPP increased the debt thereby putting additional tax burden on existing and future generations of citizens. One would think that would be against Randian objectivist principles. If they had any. So, I suppose it’s fair to say that they exist truly to faithfully honor their founder’s memory.
I wonder if anyone ever asked her, or the operators of this institute, how they rationalize this against their stated principles. I think it would be interesting.
Well, they seem to feel entitled to it:
The institute referred Reuters to a May 15 article, in which board member Harry Binswanger and senior fellow Onkar Ghate wrote that the organization would take any relief money offered from the CARES Act. “We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice,” they wrote, adding that “the government has no wealth of its own…. It can only redistribute the wealth of others.”
Weird. I thought she was against wealth redistribution. I guess it depends on which way the money is redistributed.
They presumably want their own money back. They presumably didn’t want for it to get taken away in the first place, and so presumably want it “redistributed” right back to them whenever they get asked. Of all the things to take issue with, I don’t see how this one makes the list.
The phrase “any relief money offered” implies that there is no limit on how much money they would accept, regardless of how much of the institute’s own tax money vs. other peoples’ tax money comprise their takings.
Add to this the fact that the Institute is a 501(c )(3) non-profit, so do they even pay taxes? Perhaps the people in charge of the Institute are trying to claw back their personal money through the medium of the Institute in some way.
I was partly right, this is kind of interesting, but not exactly in the way that I imagined.
It’s in MPSIMS for that very reason. Because it’s of interest but not import.
Ayn Rand spins in her grave
No, she’s fine.
Here are their reasons, in their own words.
Hypocrisy is the basis of ‘objectivism’.
I don’t see it. Let’s say a guy is being taxed, and honestly states — right then — “you know, I’d rather keep this money in my pocket, and spend it as I see fit.” And let’s say that, right after handing the money over, he again spells out that, “hey, just to be clear: I’d genuinely rather you handed that money right back to me instead of handing it to someone else.” And maybe he says that again a week later, and maybe he says it again a week after that. And then someone asks whether he’d like the money back, and he says, “uh, yeah; of course; that’s what I’ve been saying all along.”
If you want to criticize that position, I’m all ears; but if you want to call it hypocrisy, I’m raising an eyebrow.
As a 501c non-profit they pay no income, property, or sales taxes. Any monies they receive from the government is money that was extracted from other taxpayers and is not the return of the corporation’s own taxes. It’s hypocrisy all right, regardless of the position of your eyebrow.
As was pointed out upthread. And that same post went on to add the point I’ll repeat now: “the Institute is a 501(c )(3) non-profit, so do they even pay taxes? Perhaps the people in charge of the Institute are trying to claw back their personal money through the medium of the Institute in some way.”
Perhaps they are. So, what’s your claim? Do you think it’s not hypocrisy if they do it as individuals, but it is if they do it through the Institute? Or do you think it’d be hypocrisy either way?
I believe the cheap and unprincipled argument they are making is that they are doing so out of their long tortured philosophical principle that the government is the taker and now it’s their turn to take back what’s rightfully theirs. Tax status be damned:
At the Ayn Rand Institute, we are dedicated to philosophic principle. And because we are, we will take any relief money offered us. We will take it unapologetically, because the principle here is: justice.
It’s “justice” they are after, you see. The rest of the argument in the article cited by panache45 gets more paltry in it’s transparent rationalization.
Are they saying they will take the PPP as individuals who have been dismissed from employment and need financial aid for themselves and family members, or are they stating their case as representatives of ARI?
If one of those positions involves hypocrisy, but the other doesn’t, then folks accusing them of hypocrisy should spell out that they believe it’s one situation instead of the other, and we should look into whether it’s the case. (But if both of those positions would involve hypocrisy, then I — genuinely don’t see why you’re asking.)