[ingelein]

I have heard some of the conservative posters quote Ayn Rand and decided it might be worth seeing who this Ayn Rand really is . Here are 5 videos of her being interviewed by Phil Donahue years ago, very eye opening. I am trying to understand the conservative point of view, I will never agree with it, but listening to these interviews does explain some things.

Part One of a different interview with Ayn Rand;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBBt0nfDN4 :"There is a virtue in selfishness."/ "It is dangerous and improper to ascribe your success to God."/ "Every dictatorship is based on altruism."/"There is no proof there is a God."/"I am against God because I don't want to destroy reason."

Part One:Achievement/ "Men are repressed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFy...eature=related

Part Two: "Altruists are evil"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTH...eature=related

Part Three:"It's Our Oil"/"I am an atheist." / "I am smart enough to know there is no God."/ "To believe in God is a psychological weakness."/ "I am filled with wonder when I look at skyscrapers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N4Kb...eature=related

Part Four: "Society has nothing to do with the life of any one person, except to keep out of their way." / "There is no such thing as a society."/ "You are not going to force any responsibility on me."/ " I want to hold only my ideas"./ "I don't deal with those who disagree."/ " Those who disagree with me are not honorable in their ideas."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7cj...eature=related

[HM2Viking]

I didn't question the value of work. The mobility project data shows that once an individual is in the middle class there are substantial aids given by government policies that help that individual and their family stay there. Its hypocritical to deny the assistive role of government in maintaining ones social class.

My main point was that if you have been richly blessed by society that a little gratitude is in order rather than resentment of those who have not been as fortunate. There but for the grace of go I thinking.....Which does lead to the follow on question of "how do we help others bridge that gap or make the jump into the middle class..."

Poor health is one barrier that contributes to economic disparities...UHC is not charity but it is a tool to reduce barriers to achievement.

The data since LBJ shows that when our economy has been focused on delivering broad based prosperity that it has produced better economic results at all income levels.



1. LBJ
2. Clinton
3. Reagan/Carter with the edge going to Carter on job creation.

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by Jolie

"Mobility expenditures...delivered ...through employer-provided work subsidies, aids in asset accumulation, and savings incentives" translates to salaries, benefits and savings plans EARNED by WORKERS. You can quote euphemisms to try and make this sound like ill-gotten gains, but it all boils down to workers being paid what they have earned via employment, a far cry from entitlements.

It sounds like your main beef is with those who abuse the services offered for the needy. I don't think anyone sets out with their goal to create a system that enables such behavior. There will always be someone trying to game the system or take advantage of a situation. The best we can do is try to minimize it.

Do you believe any kind of social insurance and assistance for the unfortunate is just too tempting to too many people to abuse? If you believe in some sort of assistance, where do you draw the line? People often disagree over where to draw the line... 3 months unemployment insurance? 5 months? unlimited? Government subsidized health insurance for small children? For older children? For pregnant women?

I personally don't like using the term *entitlements* for assistance programs. But whatever you call it, it's assistance to certain qualifying people for various reason. For example, workers, via national policy, are *entitled* to the benefits offered by mobility expenditures.

[ingelein]

Who is John Galt? Well, he is a character in the "philosopher" and writer Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand was an objectivist.

What is an objectivist? Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism. What does this have to do with Universal Health Care, or any type of government "entitlement" program? Maybe what we liberals think of as "greedy selfishness" can be explained more clearly by understanding the Ayn Rand follower.

Entitlements/Assistance are abhorrent to the Ayn Rand school of thought as evidenced by the following quotes:

"THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS"

Ms.Rand taught that selfishness was not a character flaw, but a virtue! She advanced the idea that human beings are naturally driven to be selfish. One's desire to have riches leads us to strive harder and possibly invent a great product or start a large corporation, which in turn would benefit everyone else. She once said that "Charity is "NOT" a virtue." Ayn Rand believed that man's only obligation is to himself and that being driven by greed was indeed quite virtuous.

AYN RAND ON SERVING OTHERS "I SWEAR BY MY LIFE, AND MY LOVE OF IT, THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR ME."

AYN RAND ON SACRIFICE

"THE MAN WHO SPEAKS OF SACRIFICE, SPEAKS OF SLAVES AND MASTERS, INTENDS TO BE THE MASTER."

It is important to keep in mind that this is not a personal condemnation of Ayn Rand or her admirers. It is likely that many of them have adopted these ideas with the best of intentions. Remember the claim of the Randian is that this individual selfishness ultimately benefits everyone


http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/ad...susvsrand.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0306/p09s01-coop.html

Mixed lessons from Rand's heroes
Rand articulates like no other writer the evils of totalitarianism, interventionism, corporate welfarism, and the socialist mindset. "Atlas Shrugged" describes in wretched detail how collective "we" thinking and middle-of-the-road interventionism leads a nation down a road to serfdom. No one has written more persuasively about property rights, honest money (a gold-backed dollar), and the right of an individual to safeguard his wealth and property from the agents of coercion ("taxation is theft"). And long before Gordon Gekko, icon of the movie "Wall Street," she made greed seem good.


I applaud her effort to counter the negative image of big business as robber barons. Her entrepreneurs are high-minded, principled achievers who relish the competitive edge and have the creative genius to invent exciting new products, manage businesses efficiently, and produce great symphonies without cutting corners. Such actions are often highly risky and financially dangerous and are often met with derision at first. Rand rightly points out that these enterprising leaders are a major cause of economic progress. History is full of examples of "men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision." In the novel, protagonist Hank Reardon defends his philosophy before a court: "I refuse to apologize for my ability – I refuse to apologize for my success – I refuse to apologize for my money."

But there's a dark side to Rand's teachings. Her defense of greed and selfishness, her diatribes against religion and charitable sacrificing for others who are less fortunate, and her criticism of the Judeo- Christian virtues under the guise of rational Objectivism have tarnished her advocacy of unfettered capitalism. Still, Rand's extreme canard is a brilliant invention that serves as an essential counterpoint in the battle of ideas.

To be sure, Rand makes a key point about altruism. A philosophy of sacrificing for others can lead to a political system that mandates sacrificing for others. That, Rand shows with frightening clarity, leads to a dysfunctional society of deadbeats and bleeding-heart do-gooders (Rand calls them "looters") who are corrupted by benefits and unearned income, and constantly tax the productive citizens to pay for their pet philanthropic missions. According to Rand, they are "anti-life."

But is the only alternative to embrace the opposite, Rand's philosophy of extreme self-centeredness? Must we accept her materialist metaphysics in which, as Whittaker Chambers wrote in 1957, "Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world"?
No, there is another choice. If society is to survive and prosper, citizens must find a balance between the two extremes of self-interest and public interest.


The golden rule is the correct solution in business and life. But would we have recognized this Aristotelian mean without sampling Rand's anthem, or for that matter, the other extreme of Marxism-Leninism? As Benjamin Franklin said, "By the collision of different sentiments, sparks of truth are struck out, and political light is obtained."

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by jjjoy

It sounds like your main beef is with those who abuse the services offered for the needy. I don't think anyone sets out with their goal to create a system that enables such behavior. There will always be someone trying to game the system or take advantage of a situation. The best we can do is try to minimize it.

Do you believe any kind of social insurance and assistance for the unfortunate is just too tempting to too many people to abuse? If you believe in some sort of assistance, where do you draw the line? People often disagree over where to draw the line... 3 months unemployment insurance? 5 months? unlimited? Government subsidized health insurance for small children? For older children? For pregnant women?

I personally don't like using the term *entitlements* for assistance programs. But whatever you call it, it's assistance to certain qualifying people for various reason. For example, workers, via national policy, are *entitled* to the benefits offered by mobility expenditures.

My beef is with posters who imply that successful working people are somehow receiving ill-gotten assistance when they are earning a living, for heaven's sake!

I have repeatedly stated that I believe it is our moral and ethical responsibility as a civilized society to support those who are truly incapable of supporting themselves due to advanced age, infirmity, mental illness, etc. I also support providing temporary assistance to those who have experienced a change in circumstances, such as job loss, illness, abandonment, etc. In these cases, I firmly believe that assistance must be temporary, tied to satisfactory progress toward an identified goal (job training), and must include at least a small financial contribution on the part of the participant.

Lastly, I believe that anyone who thinks that no-one would ever take advantage of "the system" has probably not had sufficient contact with social service agencies and recipients to see abuse first-hand.

[HM2Viking]

UHC has nothing to do with charity...

[ingelein]

No one would be so naive as to think that there will never be abuse of any assistance program.UHC as HMViking so aptly stated is not a charity, it is a health insurance program in which one is expected to pay for their fair share.

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by Jolie

My beef is with posters who imply that successful working people are somehow receiving ill-gotten assistance when they are earning a living, for heaven's sake!

I appreciate your clarification. I don't think anyone was implying that middle-class incentives were "ill-gotten" assistance. I think 'mobility assistance' (or whatever it's called) was brought up in response to your comment about lazy people who don't want to work benefiting from programs funded by the people who work hard for a living. The point, I thought, was that not only the poor benefit from social assistance programs... that social assistance isn't *all* about taking from from those who have and giving to those who take.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by jjjoy

I appreciate your clarification. I don't think anyone was implying that middle-class incentives were "ill-gotten" assistance. I think 'mobility assistance' (or whatever it's called) was brought up in response to your comment about lazy people who don't want to work benefiting from programs funded by the people who work hard for a living. The point, I thought, was that not only the poor benefit from social assistance programs... that social assistance isn't *all* about taking from from those who have and giving to those who take.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by ingelein

Who is John Galt? Well, he is a character in the "philosopher" and writer Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand was an objectivist.

What is an objectivist? Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism.

Nobody here has mentioned objectivism but you. I reject the concept. Like the social welfare state, objectivism is immoral. For the same reasons. Both ideas (objectivism and the social welfare state) take what is essentially a moral belief of its adherent, and runs it through the filter of immorality. Atheism in the case of objectivism, Secular humanism in the case of the social welfare state.

You don't get morality by filtering it through immorality. No matter how hard you try.

"Who is John Galt" is a line about a character in the book, "Atlas Shrugged". It is a story about the relationship between the producers, the looters, and the moochers in society. The looters and the moochers can only do what they do IF THE PRODUCERS COOPERATE. But, what if the producers went on strike? What if Atlas shrugged?

"Who is John Galt", in the story, is a phrase that comes to embody the effects of the rampant mooching and looting off society. In effect, as the nation watches their liberty and their standard of living decline, they use the phrase to mean something along the lines of a cynical "What are you gonna do?"

I HAVE quoted Rand before. I have NOT quoted objectivism. You have spent an entire page debunking a belief system that hasn't been raised in the discussion. I stipulate that objectivism is an immoral philosophy. Your observations are valid: remove morality from the equation of a moral idea, and the idea loses its morality. But. This is why you can never sway me with moral appeals in favor of social welfare; by your SAME definitions, social welfare is immoral.

You HAVE very correctly defined the flaw in objectivism. Simultaneously, if you look, you will discovered the same flaw in its immoral twin, the social welfare state.

~faith,
Timothy.