SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Friday, September 30 - 3:35am

Link

Edit

"These middle-income earners, priced out of homes from Burlington, Vt., to Santa Fe, N.M., are being offered financial breaks to live in hot real-estate markets and near their jobs."

We lived in New Mexico twice. Most recently 2002-2003, almost one year to the day. We certainly could not afford Santa Fe. It is the state capitol, so there is basic fact of having to compete against unearned incomes of state employees, their wages being higher than the general market for the same work. Then, there is having to compete with Julia Roberts and Glenna Goodacre-- who certainly deserve all they can afford, but who definitely can afford more than we could hope to earn.

So, the reality was that we lived in Old Town in Albuquerque -- and it was a nice place. We were pretty happy.

Of course, there were those colleagues who thought that we were being extravagent, when for much less money, we could have lived 30 miles down the road in Belen, where houses cost about half of what they do in 'Burque and you can still commute to the big city in less than 30 minutes at 75 mph or better.

So, all in all, yes, this NYT article does reveals a form of welfare enjoyed by people who earn $100,000 to $1 million per year, i.e, the true middle class.

That said, I find it curious that anyone here would object. I mean, these programs are all legal and lawful and being used by the people for whom they were intended.

The standard here -- from Ayn Rand and Alec Mouhibian and Hong Zhang -- is that you can do anything with or for the government as long as it would otherwise be done in the private sector in the absence of government. Many of these so-called "welfare" opportunities are only creative financing. Lenders need to earn interest and will do almost anything to make a loan come to fruition. In other examples, public agencies only underwrite or insure loans or other programs. In some cases, government entities act more directly -- but their roles could be filled in a free market by some other agency, even if a charity.

In truth, as I noted elsewhere, in the face of their overwhelming logic, I have joined the Objectivist Panhandlers, gotten a PELL Grant and enrolled at a public college, where I also am employed as a part-time staffer. Therefore, from my position, I see nothing wrong with these people getting their fair share of their tax money back.

Post 1

Friday, September 30 - 6:24am

Link

Edit

Michael,

Can you quote Rand directly re:

The standard here -- from Ayn Rand and Alec Mouhibian and Hong Zhang -- is that you can do anything with or for the government as long as it would otherwise be done in the private sector in the absence of government.

Post 2

Friday, September 30 - 6:37am

Link

Edit

Even if there is a Rand quote, I am going to have to disagree. It would be hard for me to be a chest beating Capitalist fighting for limited government and a moral system to pay for that government while on the dole. How can you not think that you are having a hand in perpetuating redistribution?

Post 3

Friday, September 30 - 8:40am

Link

Edit

If the government is going to pick your pocket, pick right back. Whether you choose to get some value back from your stolen money or not does NOTHING for you--it is still going to be stolen. As half my income is being taken by the government, I am going to avail myself of every government service, program, tax break, or offer as I can. Doing this is NOT supporting the system--this is taking money back out of the system, not adding to it or supporting it in any way.

Paying taxes IS supporting the system, but you have a responsibility to yourself--they can and will ruin your life if you do not pay taxes. They are immorally initiating force against you. You have no ~real~ choice in the matter, so get back what you can, and sleep well with yourself.

Now, there are those who urge us to pay no taxes at all. And I can respect that position. It is perhaps both brave and foolhardy. But I am not into pointless self-sacrifice. I would also give a mugger my wallet in lieu of being shot. Neither paying taxes under the current situation, nor handing over a wallet, are immoral. Neither are voluntary actions, because there is no real choice.

When there is so much goddamned tax money sitting around that the Middle Class is getting housing subsidies, we got a real problem with Socialism in this country.

Post 4

Friday, September 30 - 9:43am

Link

Edit

Robert Davison asked for authority.
Provided by Donald O'Connor in Post 51 of
http://solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0361_2.shtml

"The growth of government institutions has destroyed an incalculable
   number of private jobs and opportunities for private employment. This is
   more apparent in some professions (as, for instance, teaching) than in
   others, but the octopus of the "public sector" is choking and draining
   the "private sector" in virtually every line of work. Since men have to
   work for a living, the opponents of the welfare state do not have to
   condemn themselves to the self-martyrdom of a self-restricted labor
   market - particularly when so many private employers are in the vanguard
   of the advocates and profiteers of welfare statism.
     There is, of course, a limitation on the moral right to take a
   government job: one must not accept any job that demands *ideological*
   services, ie any job that requires the use of one's mind to compose
   propaganda material in support of welfare statism - or any job in a
   regulatory adminstrative agency enforcing improper, non-objective laws.
   The principle here is as follows: it is proper to take the kind of work
   which is not wrong per se, except that the government should not be doing
   it, such as medical services; it is improper to take the kind of work
   that *nobody* should be doing, such as is done by the F.T.C., the F.C.C.,
   etc."   --Ayn Rand, "The Question of Scholarships"

Post 5

Friday, September 30 - 9:49am

Link

Edit

Bill Sipes wrote: "Even if there is a Rand quote, I am going to have to disagree. It would be hard for me to be a chest beating Capitalist fighting for limited government and a moral system to pay for that government while on the dole. How can you not think that you are having a hand in perpetuating redistribution?"

Ah, but see the citation above. In that thread Objectivist philosopher and contributor to Reader's Digest, Robert Bidinotto pointed out by implication that your view is intrinsicist. Objectivism rejects intrinsic claims. Therefore, if it is good for you, do it.

Personally, I believe that there is no trichotomy among the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. In other words, this free schooling is a lot of fun, but I think that focusing on entrepreneurship would be better. One reason (and there are many) that I am doing this is that my career seemed halted by the lack of academic credentials. I have only an associates in liberal arts and that does not argue well for charging $40 to $100 per hour here in Ann Arbor. However, on another SOLO thread, the old reply was posted: Who said so? In other words, balls win over degrees. But, we'll see how the degree thing works out.

Post 6

Friday, September 30 - 9:55am

Link

Edit

Scott DeSalvo said: "When there is so much goddamned tax money sitting around that the Middle Class is getting housing subsidies, we got a real problem with Socialism in this country."

I think a Swede or a Dane would tell you that apparently socialism is working as it is supposed to.

And he said: Doing this is NOT supporting the system--this is taking money back out of the system, not adding to it or supporting it in any way.

I might have pointed out that if we all stopped taking government services and if we all stopped paying taxes... but, well... that idea has been around for a long time and no one seems enthused by it. In the mean time, pardon me while I elbow you away from the trough.

Oh! So, you vote for Congressmen who bring more federal money to your district? Hey, let me toss you an easy one and see if you can hit it: During times of war, prices rise. Therefore war is good for business.

Post 7

Friday, September 30 - 9:57am

Link

Edit

Yo, Adam! According to Ayn Rand, if a welfare queen denounces the system, then she is morally entitled to its benefits.

(I leave it as an exercise for the student to identify and reconcile the contradiction.)

Post 8

Friday, September 30 - 5:32pm

Link

Edit

Michael,

The point, of course, is not about the recipients of handouts - once the politicians have confiscated the wealth from its creators, it may just as well go to one as the other - but about how the welfare state is perpetuated even where there is no poverty for the welfare state to deal with, even by politicians elected on a platform to limit or eliminate the welfare state. It is evidence against the idea that among power-seekers, Republicans and Conservatives are OK because they do not serve any coherent ideology. Politicians who have no ideology beyond "serving their constituents" are just as bad, and so are the voters who elect them. I agree with Ayn Rand: people who oppose those politicians and those handouts may as well take what they can, if only to keep the money from becoming, in some measure, a reward to those who voted for the politicians and handouts.

Post 9

Sunday, October 2 - 7:36am

Link

Edit

Michael,

Thank you for the quote.

Post 10

Sunday, October 2 - 2:10pm

Link

Edit

Adam Reed asserted: "... people who oppose those politicians and those handouts may as well take what they can, if only to keep the money from becoming, in some measure, a reward to those who voted for the politicians and handouts."

How is this different from radicals who rob banks to finance their revolutions? Historically, leftists have done this, but the cybercipher action flick, Mercury Rising opens with Bruce Willis undercover among rightwing patriots robbing a bank. The ideology of the Robin Hood is not so important. It is the act of robbery that makes it tautologically robbery.

Of course, Adam, I hereby declare my opposition to all forms of welfare.

As proof of my moral superiority, I offer the fact that most of my colleagues spend their extra PELL grant money right away, but mine is in the bank drawing interest until I need it this summer when the PELL grant does not apply. Capitalism is a private virtue.

If everyone on welfare -- single moms and multinational corporations alike -- declined their benefits, then the government would have a huge surplus. The national debt (federal debt, actually -- but state and local government debts, also) could be paid off. We could retire many billions of Federal Reserve Notes, thus greatly strengthening the economy. Many other benefits would obtain and accrue.

If A is A, then those who accept government money only make their own lives worse.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/02, 2:16pm)

Post 11

Sunday, October 2 - 2:28pm

Link

Edit

Michael,

"If everyone" will take longer to be accomplished than any other path to liberty. Until liberty, and especially in the current context, "if everyone" remains false. False things should not be assumed when deciding what course of action is in one's interest.