Why do people believe in Ayn Rand?

[alms]

We did see the results. Turn of the century Industrial Revolution was as close as we've ever had and that was pretty damn close. It was a time of basically unrestricted economic growth; business had essentially free reign to do as it pleased with basically no intervention. It was a time of rampant abuse of workers, no consumer protections, no safety requirements, and starvation wages.

Hoplite,

The time period you are referring to was not even close to being "pure capitalism". The government colluded with business interests and systematically discriminated against minorities and women. Suggesting this had anything to with capitalism or libertarianism shows a profound misunderstanding of what the respective ideologies entail.

Libertarianism and free market capitalism are not anarchy and corporatism.

 

[alms]

The problem with libertarianism is that it is an utopian ideology. It requires a new and more moral kind of man in order not to create a hard and cruel society. A purely libertarian economy would require manufacturers to do their best to produce safe products just out of fear that the market might react negatively, even though we know that unsafe product exist even with market forces as well as government regulation. It also requires the wealthy to spend significant sums on charity although we know that the kind of "charity" often consist in capitalists building huge buildings named after themselves. The age of laissez-faire capitalism was not one of charity abolishing poverty. It was an age where extreme wealth co-existed with abject poverty and fiercely rejecting every attempt by working people to improve their own lives.

The appeal of objectivism or libertarianism in general is that it relieves its adherents of duty and moral obligation in any meaningful sense of the word. It makes vices like greed into virtues by issuing a false claim that "greed is good" and that the individual pursuit of personal gain will eventually be for the greater good of all. People have always liked being told that the things that further their own self-interest is the moral thing to do. Capitalist believing in libertarianism is no more surprising than monarchs believing in the divine right of kings.

Regicollis,

You do not understand libertarianism. One basic misconception you have is that free-market capitalism precludes the existence of regulations or quality control. What you are arguing against is not free-market capitalism; instead, you are arguing against anarchocapitalism.

It seems misconceptions abound in this thread. What people think of as libertarianism is really just anarchocapitalism or corporatism. It would be the same if I were to argue against liberalism by citing Mao or Stalin. Hopefully, such a blatant mischaracterization of either ideology would not go unchallenged.

 

[reefedjib]

Source?

Even if people arent depending on SS as a primary source of income, losing it would still cause serious problems at home. Being in a position where I'm taking any job I can get (which is precious few at the moment) for income, $200 a month would be a welcome relief and no I'm not managing without it right now. To rely on that to help support yourself then suddenly lose it would be a serious problem.

How so?

Can you support the claim that this happens on a regular basis?

Ok, then you should appreciate the fact that these programs, while they dont function as well as they could, are still vital for MANY people.

You dont pay your bills when you haven't eaten yet. We need to focus on repairing and recovering our economy before we start focusing on that particular problem.

Im sorry but where else are you going to get money? You can only cut spending so much before you need an alternative source of income. My proposals earlier are one way but I know realistically that no one will go for them.

The war in Iraq alone has cost almost 5 trillion dollars so far and continues to hemorrhage money at a rate of almost a hundred million dollars per day.

Iraq war hits U.S. economy: Nobel winner | Reuters
War Costing $720 Million Each Day, Group Says - washingtonpost.com

We cant, we've cut and cut and we're running out of things to cut. It's time to look at alternative sources if income.

Easy for you to say. You may have some friends that you'll throw a few bucks at. But let me ask you something, what do you say to people who wont be able to afford medical care or groceries after the cuts and they AREN'T as lucky as your friends to have such a magnanimous benefactor around?

Again, very easy for someone to claim when those programs are helping keep them out of dumpster diving behind McDonalds.

Prior to 1935 there was no Social Security Act. The poor and the elderly had to fend for themselves and rely on family, friends, and strangers for survival. Charity was important as people privately chose to donate to good causes. Churches played an important role. The elderly often lived with the families of their children.

The entitlements of the Social Security Act are breaking the bank of America. They represent 60% of the budget and growing. One third of our budget is deficit. We cannot continue.

We should not solve this by raising taxes and become like the Social Democracies of Europe. We have to cut spending. We have to cut entitlements and eliminate Social Security and reduce Medicare.

Done are the days when middle class retirees can travel the world on my FICA payment, while owning a $500,000 home. It is time for the retired to live with their children again.

Entitlements are not VITAL for people to survive. They have done it before and can do it again.

You say we have cut and cut and are running out of things to cut. There have been ZERO cuts to Social Security or Medicare. It is time to cut them.

 

[ricksfolly]

Different reasons. I like it because of its adherence to reason, self-sufficiency, and personal responsiblity. It kind of ties in with some of my "religious" beliefs that I am the only person who can travel my specific path, and I am the only one responsible for my decisions.

How can a person be self-sufficient and still believe in religion?

ricksfolly

 

[Hoplite]

Hoplite,

The time period you are referring to was not even close to being "pure capitalism". The government colluded with business interests and systematically discriminated against minorities and women. Suggesting this had anything to with capitalism or libertarianism shows a profound misunderstanding of what the respective ideologies entail.

Libertarianism and free market capitalism are not anarchy and corporatism.

How can you deny that that was an era of anything OTHER than an example of unbridled Capitalism? It was an almost totally laissez faire set up with government basically letting business do whatever it wanted.

 

[ricksfolly]

She was highly idealistic and intellectual, but pragmatic and realistic, which are traits that often don't coincide in the same mind. As most "rationally-bent" intellectuals are inclined to do, they believe that others have the capacity to be rational. That was her mistake.

I don't quite get her being realistic. Does it mean she related with the real world, or was it just part of her philosophy?

ricksfolly

 

[lizzie]

How can a person be self-sufficient and still believe in religion?

ricksfolly

By being self-sufficient and believing in religion. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[alms]

How can you deny that that was an era of anything OTHER than an example of unbridled Capitalism?

Because government colluding with and showing favoritism towards special interests is antithetical to free markets, just as institutionalized and systematic racism and sexism is antithetical to libertarianism.

Using the time period in question as an example of free-market capitalism and libertarianism gone wrong simply demonstrates that you do not actually understand either framework.

It was an almost totally laissez faire set up with government basically letting business do whatever it wanted.

The government only let favored special interests do what they want. It actively restrained and discriminated against the competitors of these favored businesses; the government also prohibited minorities from freely entering the market. How can you hold up a period of heavy-handed government interference in the economy as an example of free-market capitalism?

 

[Goshin]

We cant, we've cut and cut and we're running out of things to cut. It's time to look at alternative sources if income.

There have been no substantive cuts to entitlements. Calling a reduction in increases a "cut" is disingenous.

Easy for you to say. You may have some friends that you'll throw a few bucks at. But let me ask you something, what do you say to people who wont be able to afford medical care or groceries after the cuts and they AREN'T as lucky as your friends to have such a magnanimous benefactor around?

Again, very easy for someone to claim when those programs are helping keep them out of dumpster diving behind McDonalds.

No sir, it is not easy for me to say. My mother is 80 and her only reliable source of income is SS, and she depends on Medicare for her medicines, without which she will not live. Cuts would affect her seriously. Her family would have to take up the slack, and none of us are wealthy. She is unable to work, her health is much too fragile.

Yet should I condone the continuation of policies that are destroying my nation's economy for the sake of my mother? Don't think this is an easy question for me. We'd have to find some way to take care of her and it would be a hardship for me and my siblings. This is no small thing... but cutbacks in social spending have got to start somewhere. SS was a Ponzi scheme and a crock from the beginning, and it has gotten worse since. When it was flush, Congress spent the SS money on everything BUT SS, now it is broke and there is nothing in the "lock box" but IOUs.

SS has to be cut, and it needs to be slowly phased out. It might take 20 years to do it in a humanitarian way... but that's better than going on as we are for the next 5, 10, 15 years until the whole system SUDDENLY comes crashing down and there IS no more money for anyone.

I have other close kin currently on gov't programs. Some of them have real needs, some could do for themselves if they weren't so damn lazy. Some of them I would help as I could... but I am not a rich benefactor, just a working man myself. I've known what desperation was. There were times in the past when all we had to eat was rice and whatever I'd managed to find to shoot in the woods. I've been sick and unable to afford to go to a doctor. I didn't take government handouts then; we managed as best we could.

People have forgotten what self-reliance is. One way or another, we're going to have to re-learn it. We can start now by cutting back and phasing out social programs, or we can wait until the economy collapses entirely, taking the entire country with it.

The former will be less catastrophic.

 

[Slartibartfast]

...

I do not agree, but I do applaud your willingness to do what you think is right even if it means hardship for you. We need more of that in this country.

 

[DeeJayH]

I am wondering why it is objected to. IT seems the opposition to Ayn Rand is based on an extremist view/enactment of her position. When her position is not extreme, but based upon the fact that in all likelihood this world is all you got, and you might as well enjoy what you got here.

but I am also a admitted novice in this field

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Source?

Even if people arent depending on SS as a primary source of income, losing it would still cause serious problems at home. Being in a position where I'm taking any job I can get (which is precious few at the moment) for income, $200 a month would be a welcome relief and no I'm not managing without it right now. To rely on that to help support yourself then suddenly lose it would be a serious problem.

It's a bit dated but I can't find the new numbers from the finance blogs I read.

USATODAY.com - Millions of Americans get by on Social Security alone

How so?

Increasing premiums based on income and assets.
It totally goes against my ethics and is completely unfair but we have gone past the time for a fair solution.

Can you support the claim that this happens on a regular basis?

You have to work and live around blue collar workers and their families to see this.

My company offers heavily subsidized insurance for all employees, I'm talking about it costing us (the employees) about $17-27 a week.
Not a huge expense at all.

A lot of these guys have their children on Medicaid because there is no requirement from Medicaid for a person to take a company's health plan before turning to the state for medical aid.

It's ridiculous and unfair to the rest of us who take financial responsibility for our children.
That doesn't include all the people on SCHIP, which is another huge crap idea.
The income requirements are sky high which means that middle and upper middle class can get heavily subsidized insurance from the state.

 

[lizzie]

Yet should I condone the continuation of policies that are destroying my nation's economy for the sake of my mother? Don't think this is an easy question for me. We'd have to find some way to take care of her and it would be a hardship for me and my siblings. This is no small thing... but cutbacks in social spending have got to start somewhere. SS was a Ponzi scheme and a crock from the beginning, and it has gotten worse since. When it was flush, Congress spent the SS money on everything BUT SS, now it is broke and there is nothing in the "lock box" but IOUs.

SS has to be cut, and it needs to be slowly phased out. It might take 20 years to do it in a humanitarian way... but that's better than going on as we are for the next 5, 10, 15 years until the whole system SUDDENLY comes crashing down and there IS no more money for anyone.

I honestly believe that if SS were phased out/stopped, it would be good for our country emotionally and psychologically. We have become a nation of people who believe that everyone deserves everything they need, just by virtue of existing. No longer do we feel it is our responsibility to care for each other.Many people don't want to take care of aged parents- those same people who took care of us for 18-20 years when we were children. People no longer feel like they are responsible for others because "the government" is taking care of those who need it. It is a real disconnectedness in our society. We say we care, but we don't really care- we just don't want to feel guilty about our coldness, so we demand the rich and the industrious pay for programs that aren't working, nor are addressing the real problems. I have never seen the greatness of American individuals more blatantly than during and for a short period after severely difficult times. It's been too long since we really had to be conscious of the suffering that many in the world experience. Our financial successes have created a cold but emotional social atmosphere.

 

[lizzie]

It's ridiculous and unfair to the rest of us who take financial responsibility for our children.
That doesn't include all the people on SCHIP, which is another huge crap idea.
The income requirements are sky high which means that middle and upper middle class can get heavily subsidized insurance from the state.

A friend of ours makes a very comfortable living, and has all his children on the SCHIP program. It's a bunch of crap when I see someone who makes twice what I do, soaking people like me, who probably pays five times what he/she does in fed income taxes.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

A friend of ours makes a very comfortable living, and has all his children on the SCHIP program. It's a bunch of crap when I see someone who makes twice what I do, soaking people like me, who probably pays five times what he/she does in fed income taxes.

I'm a single income household, practically all my coworkers are duel income households and they have their kids on SCHIP or Medicaid, not to mention the use of Food Stamps.

It's complete garbage because not surprisingly, those programs allow them to spend their disposable income on gambling and other luxuries.

 

[ricksfolly]

I am wondering why it is objected to. IT seems the opposition to Ayn Rand is based on an extremist view/enactment of her position. When her position is not extreme, but based upon the fact that in all likelihood this world is all you got, and you might as well enjoy what you got here.

but I am also a admitted novice in this field

Her beliefs are mostly philosophical and have no actual effect on the real world of stimulus and learned response.

Example... Your post was the stimulus that caused me to respond with my post.

ricksfolly

 

[Hoplite]

It's a bit dated but I can't find the new numbers from the finance blogs I read.

USATODAY.com - Millions of Americans get by on Social Security alone

Which, to me, seems to be an argument against cutting it.

Increasing premiums based on income and assets.
It totally goes against my ethics and is completely unfair but we have gone past the time for a fair solution.

I disagree on the assets part. You can have a home but still be struggling to pay the bills.

You have to work and live around blue collar workers and their families to see this.

Well I dont get off the polo field much at the villa to see what the hired help gets up to :lol:

Im very well acquainted will the blue collar crowd, I WAS that crowd before I ended up unemployed.

My company offers heavily subsidized insurance for all employees, I'm talking about it costing us (the employees) about $17-27 a week.
Not a huge expense at all.

A lot of these guys have their children on Medicaid because there is no requirement from Medicaid for a person to take a company's health plan before turning to the state for medical aid.

It's ridiculous and unfair to the rest of us who take financial responsibility for our children.

Without knowing more about their situations, I couldn't comment. Subsidized insurance doesn't mean meaningful coverage.

That doesn't include all the people on SCHIP, which is another huge crap idea.
The income requirements are sky high which means that middle and upper middle class can get heavily subsidized insurance from the state.

That's the point of SCHIP. The program was designed with the intent to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are low but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

 

[ricksfolly]

I honestly believe that if SS were phased out/stopped, it would be good for our country emotionally and psychologically.

Really now, it only takes 7.65 percent out of your weakly salary and is a good investment. I've been getting checks every month for ten years, three times more than I put into it.

Don't be swayed by the Rt wingers who say it takes 3 workers for one SS retiree. It really takes 13 workers 7.65 percent. Do the math...

Besides, if the money stopped, how could they pay the 135 million invested workers who continue to retire from that time on.

ricksfolly

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Which, to me, seems to be an argument against cutting it.

Well for 1 we know that SS isn't a meaningful part of some individuals retirement income.
They don't need it, we need to cut it.

I disagree on the assets part. You can have a home but still be struggling to pay the bills.

If you can't afford the bills for your home, that's the first clue that you can't afford the home itself.
They need to sell it and move into an apartment or a place that is cheaper with less over all costs.

You are not entitled to own something you can't afford.

Well I dont get off the polo field much at the villa to see what the hired help gets up to :lol:

Im very well acquainted will the blue collar crowd, I WAS that crowd before I ended up unemployed.

It's good to know then because there are plenty of situations where a person talks about spending money for fun but then you remember that their kids are on Medicaid.
That right there tells you that something isn't right.

Medicaid is supposed to be a safety net, not a way to increase your disposable income.

Without knowing more about their situations, I couldn't comment. Subsidized insurance doesn't mean meaningful coverage.

Our insurance is pretty good, the basic plan has $40 co pay while the top plan is $20 with 90% coverage for most things and 100% for others.
It's a PPO.

That's the point of SCHIP. The program was designed with the intent to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are low but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

If you're pulling 40k-80k a year you can afford a family insurance plan, there is no excuse with the exception of high cost of living areas(NY or LA).
Even at 25k-35k there are affordable insurance plans in a lot of places.

 

[Hoplite]

Well for 1 we know that SS isn't a meaningful part of some individuals retirement income.
They don't need it, we need to cut it.

But, as you've already indicated in the previous post, many people DO depend on SS as the sole source of income.

If you can't afford the bills for your home, that's the first clue that you can't afford the home itself.
They need to sell it and move into an apartment or a place that is cheaper with less over all costs.

You are assuming they moved in without being able to afford it. People lose jobs, ARMs screw people, bad circumstances happen and we are much better off having people in a stable living environment rather than bouncing from place to place.

It's good to know then because there are plenty of situations where a person talks about spending money for fun but then you remember that their kids are on Medicaid.
That right there tells you that something isn't right.

It's easy to say that we should only spend our money on practical things and never on entertainment if we dont have much of it. The reality is that entertainment and fun is an important part of being human, its attending to your psychological health.

Our insurance is pretty good, the basic plan has $40 co pay while the top plan is $20 with 90% coverage for most things and 100% for others.
It's a PPO.

Again, I dont know enough about the plan to comment effectively.

If you're pulling 40k-80k a year you can afford a family insurance plan, there is no excuse with the exception of high cost of living areas(NY or LA).
Even at 25k-35k there are affordable insurance plans in a lot of places.

Provided you have no prior conditions or other complications that make the cost of your insurance go up. Also, lower cost insurance means lower coverage.

I have asthma and a history of frequent sinus infections. With those conditions, meaningful insurance will cost me about $200 a month. That's WITHOUT the insurance companies knowing about my bad knees and back.

 

[Geo Patric]

We have become a nation of people who believe that everyone deserves everything they need, just by virtue of existing.

and what other means of determining "deserving" of what we "need" would you propose?

as it stands, what this means is that if YOU are in possession of what I need YOU are the arbiter of 'deserving'. I would suggest that that is bull****.

No longer do we feel it is our responsibility to care for each other.Many people don't want to take care of aged parents- those same people who took care of us for 18-20 years when we were children. People no longer feel like they are responsible for others

not like BEFORE we had social security and all the elderly were living large and phat.

We say we care, but we don't really care. . . so we demand the rich and the industrious pay for programs that aren't working, nor are addressing the real problems.

what not working? the needs of the elderly are not being met? well, if not, it is because we are too niggardly in our sharing of the riches available only to the young and "industrious".

and to what "rich and industrious" do you refer? The average worker pays considerably more in terms of the percentage of her income towards social security than do the "rich".

It's been too long since we really had to be conscious of the suffering that many in the world experience.

yeah, dammit! how the hell am i gonna successfully ignore the suffering if if I am not aware of it? How can I feel superior in the face of poverty when it is hidden beneath warm clothes and decent food?

this is the most preciously disingenuous argument the right makes.

paleoanthropologists, in qualifying the 'level of development' of early homind species (eg Neandertal) use caring for the sick and elderly as a primary evidence of the 'humaness' - YOU see it as moral failure.

geo.

 

[lizzie]

as it stands, what this means is that if YOU are in possession of what I need YOU are the arbiter of 'deserving'. I would suggest that that is bull****.

No surprise whatsoever that you would suggest it is bull****. There needn't be a means of determining who is deserving of what. When a government begins to redistribute the labor of the industrious, it necessitates determining where the money goes. In a system that encourages personal involvement in helping those who need help, government has no involvement.

not like BEFORE we had social security and all the elderly were living large and phat.

You're right. They still aren't, for the most part. Before social security, when parents lived to retirement age, children or other family typically took them in and cared for them until they died. What's wrong with that?

The average worker pays considerably more in terms of the percentage of her income towards social security than do the "rich".

I don’t support the Social security system, so it doesn’t matter.

yeah, dammit! how the hell am i gonna successfully ignore the suffering if if I am not aware of it?

You don’t ignore it. You get involved personally instead of waiting on an ineffective government system to do it for you. Give a little bit of yourself- it will make you a better person.

paleoanthropologists, in qualifying the 'level of development' of early homind species (eg Neandertal) use caring for the sick and elderly as a primary evidence of the 'humaness' - YOU see it as moral failure.

The moral failure I see is the failure of people to actually get off their asses and do something to help those in need. It’s easy to just let government do the work for you. The problem is that government is ineffective at helping where it is really needed, which is way beyond money.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

But, as you've already indicated in the previous post, many people DO depend on SS as the sole source of income.

Precisely why it should only exist as an anti poverty program and not a universal retirement program.
It does not encourage personal savings for retirement.

You are assuming they moved in without being able to afford it. People lose jobs, ARMs screw people, bad circumstances happen and we are much better off having people in a stable living environment rather than bouncing from place to place.

An apartment is a stable environment provided you can afford it, just like that of a house.
ARM's do not screw people, if you don't know what can happen with such a loan, you shouldn't be taking it.

You are not entitled to a home you can not afford.
It's a pretty basic concept, just like you're not entitled to a car you can't afford.
Making exceptions for every person is just going to further complicate things.

It's easy to say that we should only spend our money on practical things and never on entertainment if we dont have much of it. The reality is that entertainment and fun is an important part of being human, its attending to your psychological health.

I expect people to act as adults, finding extra money to go have fun but not to take care of your financial needs is disastrous to a person's financial well being.
Making excuses for ****ty behavior is how we have gotten into position with our failing budget.

Provided you have no prior conditions or other complications that make the cost of your insurance go up. Also, lower cost insurance means lower coverage.

I have asthma and a history of frequent sinus infections. With those conditions, meaningful insurance will cost me about $200 a month. That's WITHOUT the insurance companies knowing about my bad knees and back.

The vast majority of people can afford it, there is no excuse.
Yea I have knee problems too, have had them since I have in my early teens.
Getting insurance is not a big problem.

The will to pay for it is the problem, a lot of people are betting their dollars on luxuries instead of taking care of themselves and it's only getting worse.

 

[Hoplite]

Precisely why it should only exist as an anti poverty program and not a universal retirement program.
It does not encourage personal savings for retirement.

Assisting with retirement is often acting as an anti-poverty program. If the elderly dont have sufficient retirement savings or a pension, they'll be at the poverty level pretty quick.

ARM's do not screw people, if you don't know what can happen with such a loan, you shouldn't be taking it.

That is an entirely different basket that I dont want to get into here.

You are not entitled to a home you can not afford.
It's a pretty basic concept, just like you're not entitled to a car you can't afford.
Making exceptions for every person is just going to further complicate things.

Never said you were. But I dont feel you should be instantly kicked out of a home the second things turn south, you should be allowed some time to get back on your feet to keep your home.

I expect people to act as adults, finding extra money to go have fun but not to take care of your financial needs is disastrous to a person's financial well being.
Making excuses for ****ty behavior is how we have gotten into position with our failing budget.

Call it whatever you want, entertainment is attending to the psychological wellbeing of an individual and put on as much false practicality as you want, you cant change that. If an individual truly tried to live without doing anything for fun or entertainment, they would go insane.

The vast majority of people can afford it, there is no excuse.

If the vast majority of people can afford it, why dont they have it?

Getting insurance is not a big problem.

True, it's getting GOOD insurance that you can afford that's the problem

The will to pay for it is the problem, a lot of people are betting their dollars on luxuries instead of taking care of themselves and it's only getting worse.

Do you have proof of this beyond anecdotal evidence?

 

[DeeJayH]

how does one work their entire life and 'retire' in poverty

maybe you should not have stopped working than

hmmm, you think? just maybe?