Ayn Rand cashed social security and medicare

[Sasha]

Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html)

Mark Frauenfelder (http://www.boingboing.net/author/mark-frauenfelder-1/) at 10:30 AM Friday, Jan 28, 2011

Noted speed freak (http://theweek.com/article/index/203764/ayn-rand-speed-addict), serial-killer fangirl (http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm), and Tea Party hero (http://ericlightborn.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/ayn-rand-tea-party/) Ayn Rand was also a kleptoparasite, sneakily gobbling up taxpayer funds under an assumed name to pay for her medical treatments after she got lung cancer.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/tea-party-john-galt.jpgAn interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor). As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."
But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.
Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html)
Funny (http://www.boingboing.net/funny/)



source: http://boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html

[danyboy27]

heard it from mike malloy, it was seriously priceless to hear indeed.

[Lobotomy]

I'm sure the objectivists have excuses up the ass for it.

[danyboy27]

I'm sure the objectivists have excuses up the ass for it.

well, i am sort of an objectivist(somehow) and there are no excuses for that!

when someone claim to be superior and live by its own principles, there is no way this person can back down without loosing all credibility.

[kahimikarie]

She also got a lot of financial support from family when she first moved to the USA despite later saying how she never accepted any handouts and "made it on her own."

[Pretty Flaco]

Obviously she has no choice. She lives in an oppressive system where the government can give her aid for medical expenses.

[L.A.P.]

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/hypocrite1.jpg

[RGacky3]

well, i am sort of an objectivist(somehow) and there are no excuses for that!

when someone claim to be superior and live by its own principles, there is no way this person can back down without loosing all credibility.

Objectivist in the sense that they follow a specific ideology of "objectivism" not the basic definition of that term.

But yeah, sounds right, a hypocrite market fundementalist, what else is new. :P

[Skooma Addict]

Everyone should support at least some basic social provisions which should be provided no matter what by the government.

[Nolan]

Make this universally known.

[RGacky3]

Everyone should support at least some basic social provisions which should be provided no matter what by the government.

Not Ayn Rand.

But wait, are you admiting that markets do not meet social needs?

[Salyut]

I always found the Rand/Branden affair to be some serious lolwat.

[Havet]

On Ayn Rand, you naughty girl :lol:

On the other hand, she's not really the only one (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-14/vietnam-may-allow-business-owners-into-communist-party-to-improve-image.html) not being honest with herself. I guess there are no principled men and women anymore, eh Rand? So much for Hank, John, Frisco and Slug...

[Nolan]

On the other hand, she's not really the only one (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-14/vietnam-may-allow-business-owners-into-communist-party-to-improve-image.html) not being honest with herself. I guess there are no principled men and women anymore, eh Rand? So much for Hank, John, Frisco and Slug...

Oh, they're being perfectly honest with themselves.

[Skooma Addict]

Not Ayn Rand.

But wait, are you admiting that markets do not meet social needs?

Markets aren't a be all end all solution for everything.

[gorillafuck]

Everyone should support at least some basic social provisions which should be provided no matter what by the government.
You've changed since I last visited OI.

[Revolution starts with U]

This is a good thing, really. And not because it's a gotcha on Ayn Rand.
Most of them base their views, wherein you decide with your actions, not your mouth (which is true to an extent). No matter what Rand said, she's a commy. Her actions proved it :thumbup1:

[Catmatic Leftist]

Everyone should support at least some basic social provisions which should be provided no matter what by the government.


Markets aren't a be all end all solution for everything.

Are we rubbing off on you? :D

[Dean]

You've changed since I last visited OI.

I don't think so. Skooma has said this once or twice in the past (this is going months back).

It'd be nice to get him to expand, though, since its clearly a pretty fundamental diversion in rhetoric.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't think so. Skooma has said this once or twice in the past (this is going months back).

It'd be nice to get him to expand, though, since its clearly a pretty fundamental diversion in rhetoric.

The means of production should be for the most part privately owned, while allowing the government to control the majority of certain industries (defense, police, roads, schools ect). There should also be a social safety net for people to fall back on (without it getting out of hand), and the government should cover the costs of certain procedures if someone cannot afford them(for example, pay for a trip to the emergency room for someone who is extremely poor.)

[Dean]

The means of production should be for the most part privately owned, while allowing the government to control the majority of certain industries (defense, police, roads, schools ect). There should also be a social safety net for people to fall back on (without it getting out of hand), and the government should cover the costs of certain procedures if someone cannot afford them(for example, pay for a trip to the emergency room for someone who is extremely poor.)

I figured it was something like this. I'm more interested in why you think this, however.

Clearly, you don't think that the private exchange of individuals in the market can create a stable environment for distributing these goods, or otherwise won't meet some values fundamental to your worldview. Why is that?

[Skooma Addict]

I figured it was something like this. I'm more interested in why you think this, however.

Clearly, you don't think that the private exchange of individuals in the market can create a stable environment for distributing these goods, or otherwise won't meet some values fundamental to your worldview. Why is that?

I think the services I mentioned could be provided by a market, I just don't think it is desirable and the necessary precautions necessary to make them work don't have any chance of happening in reality. For example, police protection can be provided by the market, but the transition to market provision of police would have to be taken in small incremental steps, and that just isn't going to happen. Also, government provision of police with some private companies operating in the mix is still preferable, since everyone should have access to decent police protection at all times.

The same scenario basically applies to all my other examples. Also, the government should provide a social safety net as there is no guarantee everyone would be able to make it on their own without one.

[Dean]

For example, police protection can be provided by the market, but the transition to market provision of police would have to be taken in small incremental steps, and that just isn't going to happen. Also, government provision of police with some private companies operating in the mix is still preferable, since everyone should have access to decent police protection at all times.

So, the rate at which police are privatized is inversely proportional to the rate at which "everyone [would] have access to decent police protection," right?

Why push for privatization at all? Shouldn't we view pushes for privatization as suspect, considering how the dispensation and disposition of police protection would almost certainly be skewed in the favor of a minority elite that are close to the companies which step in to take on the responsibility?

Why, if you think everyone should have decent police protection "at all times" should we allow private capital to be involved with the system at all?

[Skooma Addict]

So, the rate at which police are privatized is inversely proportional to the rate at which "everyone [would] have access to decent police protection," right?

Why push for privatization at all? Shouldn't we view pushes for privatization as suspect, considering how the dispensation and disposition of police protection would almost certainly be skewed in the favor of a minority elite that are close to the companies which step in to take on the responsibility?

Why, if you think everyone should have decent police protection "at all times" should we allow private capital to be involved with the system at all?

There should be a public police force which is funded through tax dollars. If someone wants to and they can afford it, they can hire their own private police.

[RGacky3]

Markets aren't a be all end all solution for everything.

Thats a start.


For example, police protection can be provided by the market

They have a system like that in somalia.

[Havet]

They have a system like that in somalia.

They also have it in Egypt right now, although its not motivated by profit

[DuracellBunny97]

It's a delicious hypocrisy, and I will certainly remind randtards of this should I ever feel the need, but to be fair, she hardly had a choice in the matter, so I can't be to mean

[RGacky3]

They also have it in Egypt right now, although its not motivated by profit

Except that one works :), the ones that don't work are the prisoners payed by mubarak to cause trouble.

[sologdin]

the linked article is tasteless and actually undermines the point it attempts to make.

i.e., if there is such a thing as apodictic falsity, rand's general theses are good examples of it. there is no need to pull an anecdote about her exercise of a right under the social security act to demonstrate that falsity. highlighting said exercise, as though it were a revelation, de-emphasizes the fact that she has used public funds in the past, and necessarily so (roads, schools, police, &c.).

it also de-emphasizes, worse still, the necessary fact that her crude individualism, based more on shamanistic repetition of puerile mantras than anything else, is not a possibility, given the fact that all human persons, considered solely as pure (and fictional) "individuals," have a survival rate of precisely zero, extending from conception to adulthood.

capitalists like to boast about being "self-made," randroids first among them, whether it's john galt fetishists or terry goodkind's horrid fans. such boasts are self-contradictory posturing, and there's no need to grant them discursive space to make the argument by latching onto a perceived vice like "hypocrisy" (this is moral criticism? based on which religion's liturgy? and why?) when the entire ideology of individualism is auto-diremptive.

[Dean]

They also have it in Egypt right now, although its not motivated by profit

The market is not synonymous with freedom. Try again.

[Ocean Seal]

In all fairness, there is an excuse. She took government benefits because capitalism cannot exist without the state, and the state can provide more benefits than all of the corporations which exist an entities to exploit workers and bring in the greatest profit margins. Yes, Ayn Rand is a delusional woman with the idea that paradise is about the undisturbed theft of labor by the very few for the very many. However, she like all people should be entitled to benefits, its a shame though that once she made it she wanted to have nothing to do with non-corporate benefits. Its shows that she is a hypocrite and that anarcho-capitalism cannot work even for her.

[RGacky3]

She took government benefits because capitalism cannot exist without the state, and the state can provide more benefits than all of the corporations which exist an entities to exploit workers and bring in the greatest profit margins.

Except that still makes her a hypocrite.

[Havet]

The market is not synonymous with freedom. Try again.

Nowhere have I stated that. And you need to objectively define market before we discuss anything. All I said is that there are private voluntary police in egypt, whose only motivation is to prevent more shit from being looted.

[Havet]

In all fairness, there is an excuse. She took government benefits because capitalism cannot exist without the state, and the state can provide more benefits than all of the corporations which exist an entities to exploit workers and bring in the greatest profit margins.

...Its shows that she is a hypocrite and that anarcho-capitalism cannot work even for her.


Except that still makes her a hypocrite.

Just to clarify here, she is not an anarcho-capitalist. She defends the existence of a State (as we know it), so she's technically a minarchist

However, her own version of what the State should and shouldn't do leaves out social benefits and general welfare. According to her, the State should only exist as courts, military and police. To protect from property theft, fraud and wars/invasions.

She does seem to follow that 90s/00s mentality that has raided the corporate world. Take as much as you can while you can, then get the fuck out. And that is the sad part.

[Skooma Addict]

They have a system like that in somalia.

Did you not read the rest of my sentence?

[RGacky3]

Did you not read the rest of my sentence?

I did, but if the state needs to provide police obviously the market can't provide it.

[Bud Struggle]

I did, but if the state needs to provide police obviously the market can't provide it.

The market technically could provide police, but if you thing the government police are bad--------:crying:

[Skooma Addict]

I did, but if the state needs to provide police obviously the market can't provide it.

What about the police service makes if different from any other service which can be provided by the market?

[sologdin]

private police rely on subscription payments for service. the eventual development is that clarence the petit bourgeois is unable to pay this month for security services, so it becomes a free robbery zone at clarence's oil change & salad bar.

this type of conduct is standard with for-profit firefighters--it produces the absurd result now that a firefighting (or police) outfit will watch a building burn to the ground in order to prevent freeriders from skipping out on subscription fees.

and it leads to the historical result of firefighting outfits actually causing fires in order to maintain high interest in paying their fees. i suspect a policing firm might also have reason to retain some catburglars, rapists, and other thugs for the same marketing purpose.

[The Man]

Funny hearing it from Ayn 'I hate poor people' Rand.

[Skooma Addict]

private police rely on subscription payments for service. the eventual development is that clarence the petit bourgeois is unable to pay this month for security services, so it becomes a free robbery zone at clarence's oil change & salad bar.

this type of conduct is standard with for-profit firefighters--it produces the absurd result now that a firefighting (or police) outfit will watch a building burn to the ground in order to prevent freeriders from skipping out on subscription fees.

and it leads to the historical result of firefighting outfits actually causing fires in order to maintain high interest in paying their fees. i suspect a policing firm might also have reason to retain some catburglars, rapists, and other thugs for the same marketing purpose.

These are things could possibly, but needn't necessarily, go wrong. I was asking of there was something about the policing service which makes it fundamentally unable to be provided for by a market (i.e. transactions are not taken into account by the price system).

I think that for the most part, for profit firefighting has proved to be quite successful. It is not the norm by any means for for-profit firefighters to start fires on their own.

As for police, poor people would still be protected by police. It is just that their service would not be up to par with that which wealthy people would enjoy. But then again, this is already the case today. There are plenty of things which could go wrong, just like there are plenty of things which could go wrong with government provided police, but there is nothing about the service which means that it can under no circumstances be provided by a market.

[RGacky3]

The market technically could provide police, but if you thing the government police are bad--------:crying:


THe market technically could not provide police, it would be a disaster and essencially just a militia situation.


What about the police service makes if different from any other service which can be provided by the market?

First of all the market does not provide other services in an efficient good manner, the police would have to be paid like an insurance company, (we all know how well private health insurance works), meaning if you can't afford it, you just gotta deal with crime, most private police would only want to work for the rich because it pays more for less work.


I think that for the most part, for profit firefighting has proved to be quite successful. It is not the norm by any means for for-profit firefighters to start fires on their own.


When for profit firefighting was the norm, starting fires on their own was the norm. For the most part its been a disaster, (btw, its still under heavy government regulation).


As for police, poor people would still be protected by police. It is just that their service would not be up to par with that which wealthy people would enjoy. But then again, this is already the case today.

Poor people would'nt be protected unless thei paid. Its the nature of the police, your not paying for something and getting a product, its an insurance, not only from theft but from murder and rape, your gonna make protection from those things a money issue?

I guarantee you poor places would go unprotected if there was a pure for profit police force (without heavy government interferance), not only that but cost would go sky high because of executive pays and profit.

Mostly a market based police force is just screw the poor protect the rich.

[mikelepore]

Can someone verify that Rand said people shouldn't accept government benefits? It's clear that she believed that we should have a system where government benefits are not offered, but that's not the same as saying that when they are offered it's wrong to take them.

[Havet]

Can someone verify that Rand said people shouldn't accept government benefits? It's clear that she believed that we should have a system where government benefits are not offered, but that's not the same as saying that when they are offered it's wrong to take them.

She says its ok, because she was forced to pay for that welfare anyway:

(highlighted the specific parts)

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”


I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.


There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.


A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.


The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.


Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .


The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.


The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.


The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.


In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.
http://cultureofreason.org/style/img/theobjectivist.jpg (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR02N) “The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist (http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR02N), June 1966, 11.

[Rooster]

THe market technically could not provide police, it would be a disaster and essencially just a militia situation.



First of all the market does not provide other services in an efficient good manner, the police would have to be paid like an insurance company, (we all know how well private health insurance works), meaning if you can't afford it, you just gotta deal with crime, most private police would only want to work for the rich because it pays more for less work.



When for profit firefighting was the norm, starting fires on their own was the norm. For the most part its been a disaster, (btw, its still under heavy government regulation).



Poor people would'nt be protected unless thei paid. Its the nature of the police, your not paying for something and getting a product, its an insurance, not only from theft but from murder and rape, your gonna make protection from those things a money issue?

I guarantee you poor places would go unprotected if there was a pure for profit police force (without heavy government interferance), not only that but cost would go sky high because of executive pays and profit.

Mostly a market based police force is just screw the poor protect the rich.


I don't understand why you're protecting the idea of a police force just to argue about markets. The market can, and to an extent, does provide a police force. The same way that hospitals and ambulances can be provided by the market. Unacceptable or not, the market can provide it.

[RGacky3]

I don't understand why you're protecting the idea of a police force just to argue about markets.

I'm not protecting the idea of a police force, I'm saying a market police force would not at all resemble a public police force.


The same way that hospitals and ambulances can be provided by the market.

Most ambulances are public, the private ones are heavily heavily regulated, most hospitals are non-profit, meaning not part of the market, and the for profit ones are also so rediculously regulated that you can barely call them part of the market.

So no, the market does not, and cannot provite it. BTW, private healthcare is a disaster, private police force would be even worse.

I'mt not defending the iea of a police force, I'm stating a fact, markets would not provide for a police force that resembles a public police force, it would resembe private militias.

[Havet]

most hospitals are non-profit, meaning not part of the market.

That depends on one's definition of market

If we take a general definition, such as the one used in Wikipedia:

"A market is any one of a variety of systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems), institutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions), procedures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures), social relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_relations) and infrastructures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructures) whereby businesses sell their goods, services and labor to people in exchange for money"

Nowhere is mentioned that an institution needs to make a profit in order to be part of the market.

[Skooma Addict]

First of all the market does not provide other services in an efficient good manner, the police would have to be paid like an insurance company, (we all know how well private health insurance works), meaning if you can't afford it, you just gotta deal with crime, most private police would only want to work for the rich because it pays more for less work.

There are very very few services where companies would "only want to work for the rich." Police is definitely not one of them. Some companies would only work for the rich. Others would appeal to a mass market, others would appeal to the poor, and others would appeal to their own specific group. This is the way it is with most other goods and services.

Things could go wrong. Firms could start attacking eachother or customers of other agencies, or no private police could rise at all and there would just be chaos and warlords. That is one of the main reasons which govt provided police is superior in an already stale country like America (things could be different in, say, North Korea).


Poor people would'nt be protected unless thei paid. Its the nature of the police, your not paying for something and getting a product, its an insurance, not only from theft but from murder and rape, your gonna make protection from those things a money issue?

I guarantee you poor places would go unprotected if there was a pure for profit police force (without heavy government interferance), not only that but cost would go sky high because of executive pays and profit.

Mostly a market based police force is just screw the poor protect the rich.

Well nobody would have to pay for police if they didn't want to. Someone might be satisfied with buying a gun. Also, everyone, whether they pay or not, would be protected to some extent. For example, if you go to a mall, you are going to be protected by police no matter what.

[RGacky3]

"A market is any one of a variety of systems (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems), institutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions), procedures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures), social relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_relations) and infrastructures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructures) whereby businesses sell their goods, services and labor to people in exchange for money"

Nowhere is mentioned that an institution needs to make a profit in order to be part of the market.

In that case public police are part of the market, but when talking about "the market" most people mean for-profit competative industries.


There are very very few services where companies would "only want to work for the rich." Police is definitely not one of them. Some companies would only work for the rich. Others would appeal to a mass market, others would appeal to the poor, and others would appeal to their own specific group. This is the way it is with most other goods and services.


Such as? Even Food, poor people need food stamps, housing, poor people need public housing, hospitals poor people need medicaid (or they just don't get real healthcare). So no, the market does not always provide for the poor, infact generally it does not, and I honestly doubt a priavet police force would, again why would they? More work, less money, more than likely poor people cannot afford police protection, they are too busy trying to afford the nessesities of life. These are the ones that can't afford health insurance.


Things could go wrong. Firms could start attacking eachother or customers of other agencies, or no private police could rise at all and there would just be chaos and warlords. That is one of the main reasons which govt provided police is superior in an already stale country like America (things could be different in, say, North Korea).


The North Korean state is not a public institution, its a kim ill institution.

But more that likely private police would BE essencially private armies warlords.


Well nobody would have to pay for police if they didn't want to. Someone might be satisfied with buying a gun.

Mnay people simply would'nt be able to pay for police.


Also, everyone, whether they pay or not, would be protected to some extent. For example, if you go to a mall, you are going to be protected by police no matter what.

Because your in a private building paid for by the owners of that building. No private cop is gonna go to the hood unless they are paid for it.

[Havet]

In that case public police are part of the market, but when talking about "the market" most people mean for-profit competative industries.

That could be so, but if we read further on the definition:

"Two people may trade, but it takes at least three persons to have a market, so that there is competition on at least one of its two sides.[1] "

[1] ^ Sullivan, arthur; Steven M. Sheffrin (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 28. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.

Since the police has a public monopoly over law enforcement, there are in fact only 2 "people" trading.

But this is just semantic talk. There are more pressing issues.

[Dean]

I think that for the most part, for profit firefighting has proved to be quite successful. It is not the norm by any means for for-profit firefighters to start fires on their own.

Ahh, the quixotic regard for capitalism. It's not like we live in a society with a well equipped, professional and public police force that might account for this.

[Dean]

Nowhere have I stated that. And you need to objectively define market before we discuss anything. All I said is that there are private voluntary police in egypt, whose only motivation is to prevent more shit from being looted.
Skooma was describing a market situation, the "it" you referred to in the initial post. If you were talking about something else, you should have specified that.


There should be a public police force which is funded through tax dollars. If someone wants to and they can afford it, they can hire their own private police.
Again, this tells me absolutely nothing about why you come to this conclusion. Why can't you ever explain anything about why you think what you do? All you ever do is repeat the same opinions, which amount to prejudices without any underlying, explanatory logic.

[Skooma Addict]

Such as? Even Food, poor people need food stamps, housing, poor people need public housing, hospitals poor people need medicaid (or they just don't get real healthcare). So no, the market does not always provide for the poor, infact generally it does not, and I honestly doubt a priavet police force would, again why would they? More work, less money, more than likely poor people cannot afford police protection, they are too busy trying to afford the nessesities of life. These are the ones that can't afford health insurance.

None of the goods/services you listed support your point. There is food for poor people, housing for poor people, and hospitals do not only serve rich people. Also, given that health insurance is probably the most heavily regulated industry in he country, the fact that it is so expensive is not a case against markets. Market reforms is what would make it less expensive (for example, opening up interstate competition). So "only serve the rich" is not very common.


The North Korean state is not a public institution, its a kim ill institution.

But more that likely private police would BE essencially private armies warlords.

I was just providing an example where private police would be preferable to the current state of affairs. Obviously this would be the case in North Korea.


Mnay people simply would'nt be able to pay for police.

Most people could. Others could rely on voluntary protection services such as a community watch instead.

[Skooma Addict]

Again, this tells me absolutely nothing about why you come to this conclusion. Why can't you ever explain anything about why you think what you do? All you ever do is repeat the same opinions, which amount to prejudices without any underlying, explanatory logic.

I think there should be a public police force to ensure that everyone has access to quality protection and so there is not an extreme disparity between the protection given to different income earners. At the same time, allow people to hire their own private security personnel if they can afford it and believe they would find it beneficial.

[RGacky3]

There is food for poor people, housing for poor people

BECAUSE OF state intervention.


Also, given that health insurance is probably the most heavily regulated industry in he country, the fact that it is so expensive is not a case against markets.

when you compare public health, to private ... yes it is.


Market reforms is what would make it less expensive (for example, opening up interstate competition). So "only serve the rich" is not very common.


Interstate competition is just one factor and really would'nt make that big of a difference.


Most people could. Others could rely on voluntary protection services such as a community watch instead.

As far as most people could, I doubt it, can you afford private security?


At the same time, allow people to hire their own private security personnel if they can afford it and believe they would find it beneficial.

i.e. the status quo.


I was just providing an example where private police would be preferable to the current state of affairs. Obviously this would be the case in North Korea.


What would be preferable would be a democratic government, privitizing the police for would'nt change much.

[Ele'ill]

I just had someone suggest that Rand would have been able to pay for her treatments if the government would not have taxed her for her entire life

(she did pay for treatment, for herself and others, and perhaps would not have been able to afford privatized health care if her world existed, no?)

[Kotze]

That story about taking government assistance is some really weak criticism, if it can even be called that. If there is a service that I don't think has good quality and I believe that it would be better run as private enterprise, but I'm forced to pay for it, I don't see how it makes me a hypocrite if I still use it. Whether Ayn Rand would have been able to afford it in a society closer to her convictions is a question with many variables. For example, there's a strong lobby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association), acting like a guild basicially, they limit the amount of people becoming physicians in the USA which makes their service more expensive.

What I like especially about Ayn Rand is the role smoking plays in her writings. Cigars and cigarettes are symbols of man's dominance over nature, man's rationality, man's power to innovate.

Fire. The fire in your hand. Fire is fascinating stuff.

So you see, when I invented a little device that allows me to have a smoke while taking a shower, that was proof of how strong-willed I am.

[Ele'ill]

That story about taking government assistance is some really weak criticism, if it can even be called that. If there is a service that I don't think has good quality and I believe that it would be better run as private enterprise, but I'm forced to pay for it, I don't see how it makes me a hypocrite if I still use it.

I believe it was the quote in the article from Evva Pryror that did it- "As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out"

Given Rand's stance that the poor are scum I think it's note worthy.



Whether Ayn Rand would have been able to afford it in a society closer to her convictions is a question with many variables. For example, there's a strong lobby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association), acting like a guild basicially, they limit the amount of people becoming physicians in the USA which makes their service more expensive.

I'm in an argument with someone about this right now where they're trying to position me so that I have to defend current services and policy which I'm not going to do. The other argument is regarding 'theft via taxes' and 'could have afforded health care otherwise' but in such a fantastical world perhaps the poor would be able to as well which brings us around to the quotes by Rand ridiculing the poor and those who seek social services in this world.


What I like especially about Ayn Rand is the role smoking plays in her writings. Cigars and cigarettes are symbols of man's dominance over nature, man's rationality, man's power to innovate.

Fire. The fire in your hand. Fire is fascinating stuff.

So you see, when I invented a little device that allows me to have a smoke while taking a shower, that was proof of how strong-willed I am.

Fire in your lungs while you die of lung cancer.