Ayn Rand:
"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."
One of the biggest problems I have with Objectivism is this: Any sort of social safety net provided by a government, funded by a tax on all of society, is morally wrong. Period. No exceptions. (At least none that I can ever remember reading.)
On the surface, "Everyone must pull their own weight" sounds good. And I agree with that up to a point. But I don't recall ever reading any sort of limit to this idea in Rand's work. Once again, I invoke the heart-string-pulling example of the disabled child whose parent's CANNOT AFFORD to provide sufficient medical care for the child to reach adulthood.
If I read Ayn Rand correctly, that's just tough luck for that family. If the parents can't afford it, then the child will die. Society as a whole should not feel obliged to lift a finger to help. The child has a "need" that is most likely larger than he or his parents will ever be able to repay. Therefore, let him die.
Am I mis-reading Rand here?
If a society were fully "free" payment for government "services" would be entirely voluntary. Would it not?
Proper services from government such as police, armed forces, law courts are necessary, after all. Willingness to pay for such services would stem from the fact that a citizen's interests are affected by such provisions (or lack of them.)
Where Ayn Rand steps in to this question and its application is as follows.
1.Government is NOT the rightful OWNER of a citizen's income. It cannot be allowed a blank check in how it disposes of tax money.
2.The delimiting of government and its compulsory grab of tax revenues is the delimiting of the harm which can come from special interests dangers vis a vis equitable fair play for all.
3.The Government MUST be the servant--NOT the ruler over its citizens. It is an AGENT and not a BENEFACTOR for one group over another. No gratuitious dispensing of one person's money for the sole benefit of another can be countenanced. Why? The obvious nature of injustice ineherent in income redistribution falls into question.
The only just standard of success is merit, ability, productivity, talent and ownership of the fruit of one's own genius.
The other side of this argument is that each person must be provided for simply because of their NEED.
This is the de facto position of Communism: Each according to his NEED.
Robin Hood robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Making elected officials some kind of latter day Robin Hood is the worst sort of naive idealism.
The poster for such Robin Hoods would be the disabled child whose parents cannot afford medical care. But, the reality--once those Robin Hoods came in to power would be astoundingly less heartbreaking.
The poor and disabled cannot give money to politician's! It is the rich and influential who can steer the ship. Real Politik becames the dissonance between what Government "says" it will do for the disabled, the poor and the helpless and what it really does in the end.
Oil Companies get subsidies right now. Farmers get money for NOT planting. Rules, regulations and lobbyists twist laws into pretzels.
Giving power to men to take what you earn away from you and give it to others is a DANGEROUS idea! Unless you are at the bottom of the totem pole--it is intellectually dishonest to harbor such views.
Government handouts are the carrot that lures voters to empower Robin Hoods into office. The politics of envy and victimhood are alive and well.
Separating the rhetoric from the actual practice of social programs takes a strong stomach.
Ask yourself these questions.
1.Should any of your neighbors be able to walk into your garage and grab your lawnmowever if they can't afford one of their own?
2.Should any poor person who can't feed themselves be able to walk into your kitchen and raid your refrigerator?
3.Should any homeless person be able to sleep on your livingroom couch as needed?
Then, why would you give a 3rd party (Government) the power to let them?
See how practical a question this is morally?
It all looks black and white on paper. But, objective reality is quite a handy standard to apply to such questions.
1.Should poor people undertake the responsibility of bringing children into their marriage if they CANNOT AFFORD CARING FOR THEM?
2.Should YOU pay for them to do so simply because they don't exercise rational decision making ability?
These questions are fundamental.
