I’d be surprised if she said she wanted taxes to support hospitals, anyone have a reference? Usually “rational self-interest” types only want taxes to go for things that support commerce, like roads and national defense.
Here’s some of her ridiculous logic.]
But she wrote novels, gave talks, and granted interviews. We never saw how she would operate (and not that I would have wanted to). If she had a business and was CEO, would anyone want to work for her? She seems to have a very good textbook understanding of her ideas. However, in the interview, Mike Wallace asks her about vital components in society that often operate through government assistance in full or in part such as roads or hospitals and she believes that people will act in "rational self interest" and some corporation will say "Fine, we'll fully fund hospitals." Or some business, like Wal-Mart, would step up and decide to build roads (?) Is any of this plausible? Based on this interview, she does not agree with any taxation at all...zero...any funding for public facilities would have to be done because a private individual or corporation feels so compelled to do so, provided they have the financial means.If a business like Wal-Mart built roads, they would make them toll roads and restrict access. The same with hospitals. Can you see capitalists building roads and hospitals and providing free access to the poor? That's why we need governmemt doing it. It's the only entity, as inefficient as it may sometimes be, that we can depend on to provide access to everyone. The economy would collapse if we had a system of only private enterprise building roads, dams, bridges,, railroads, hospitals etc. Lois
Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand
CuthbertJ: I created this thread to discuss any aspect of Ayn Rand that posters wish. Personally, I've never really paid too much attention to her until recently (mainly because I like the fact that I can now hear the stuff straight from her mouth on youtube and not read other peoples interpretations), so it's all interesting. I am not focused on current politicians who are her fans or think they can interpret her philosophies. I've just been talking about what Ayn states herself (such as in the interview) and whether it sounds reasonable. It does not, to me at least. You make a good point though...there are a myriad of philosophies and people are free to extrapolate which aspects do actually work and philosophies can be very general. Correct me if I am wrong, but really this is just about her not wanting taxation (likely due to her childhood experiences in Russia). I am stuck on the fact that she does not discuss eliminating tax to be used for frivolous things, she seems to want it eliminated for some of the most basic and common goods such as roads or hospitals. She can't be talking about charity or goodwill because we all know that we are free in our personal lives to give as much or as little (or nothing) to philanthropic causes.Well taxation was a specific. Having grown up in the Soviet Union, where one's life BY LAW belonged to others, she naturally formed her philosophy as a reaction to that. And taxation (misunderstood) on the face of it does seem to be a way to soak the rich to support the poor. Of course that's pretty simplistic, because many of the so-called rich didn't earn a dime of their wealth, and many of the poor aren't that way because of laziness, although that's the conservative meme. Another common misunderstanding of her is to think she was against charity. She wasn't. She was against FORCED charity, where a person is basically given no choice in the matter. But charity freely given was perfectly ok with her.
But charity freely given was perfectly ok with her.That's at the heart of the debate. What does "freely given" mean? Rich people freely receive all sorts of charity, but they'd never admit it. They narrowly define charity as parting with money that is legally their's. Of course, what's legally their's was defined by the rich people that came before them, so, there ya go.
But charity freely given was perfectly ok with her.That's at the heart of the debate. What does "freely given" mean? Rich people freely receive all sorts of charity, but they'd never admit it. They narrowly define charity as parting with money that is legally their's. Of course, what's legally their's was defined by the rich people that came before them, so, there ya go. If a country or society were to depend on charity "freely given" the economy would collapse. LL