Wealthcare (New Republic decries influence of Ayn Rand)

New Republic ^ | September 14, 2009 | Jonathan Chait

[reaganaut1]

...

Most recently the worldview that I am describing has colored much of the conservative outrage at the prospect of health care reform, which some have called a "redistribution of health" from those wise enough to have secured health insurance to those who have not. "President Obama says he will cover thirty to forty to fifty million people who are not covered now--without it costing any money," fumed Rudolph Giuliani. "They will have to cut other services, cut programs. They will have to be making decisions about people who are elderly." [...]

In these disparate comments we can see the outlines of a coherent view of society. It expresses its opposition to redistribution not in practical terms--that taking from the rich harms the economy--but in moral absolutes, that taking from the rich is wrong. It likewise glorifies selfishness as a virtue. It denies any basis, other than raw force, for using government to reduce economic inequality. It holds people completely responsible for their own success or failure, and thus concludes that when government helps the disadvantaged, it consequently punishes virtue and rewards sloth. And it indulges the hopeful prospect that the rich will revolt against their ill treatment by going on strike, simultaneously punishing the inferiors who have exploited them while teaching them the folly of their ways.

There is another way to describe this conservative idea. It is the ideology of Ayn Rand.

[reaganaut1]

Liberals do not admit that there is a moral as well as practical argument against using taxes to redistribute wealth, and thus they bemoan the influence of Ayn Rand.

[Red Badger]

They despise moral absolutes...................

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Government control in access to health services is fascism.

[Paladin2]

Taxation IS theft, Harry Reid’s claim that the income tax is voluntary not withstanding.

[Lurker]

Rand was a prophet.

[KarlInOhio]

Watch the leftists squirm when you start saying things like "The first principle is that I own myself. The corollary is that I own what I produce through my labor because I own myself." Then when they try to argue against the idea that I own the fruits of my labor ask them "In that case, if I don't own my labor then I don't really own myself. Then who does own me?"

They feel much more comfortable arguing from some utilitarian view point than from moral absolutes.

[screaminsunshine]

A citizen who wishes to be responsible for himself and be free from government opression is the natural enemy of the collectivist thief. We are the victims of legalized strong armed robbery.

[Durus]

I never thought to see so many logical fallacies in one article. If written as a satire of the liberal "thought" process it would be brilliant. If written from belief then the author is truly delusional. I suspect though it is written by a fellow traveler to give grist the the useful idiots that can't seem to follow the most simple of arguments.

[Reeses]

It’s a textbook example of a hit piece, something the left specializes in. They can’t succeed attacking the ideas, so they attack the person. It’s a key skill used by trial lawyers to manipulate the jury.

[Rashputin]

The most generous and patient people in the history of mankind have been abused so often that they've finally gotten fed up and it's a problem? When all else fails, yell about how selfish people are being, I guess. The fact is, the most selfish and self-centered generation in our history ignored these communists and let them rise to the top.

That's the real selfish crowd, those that ignored the rise of the socialist scum trying to own the population, not those refusing to go along with totalitarian socialists on a joy ride to collapse. This article is just another example of a leftist thinking that this is their country not a free country for all.

If the very idea that capitalists should flee for the good of the leftists isn't enough to prove Ayn correct, what is? Here is an author who on page after page tries to make self reliance and reliance on ones own family the same thing as reliance on the government. I think it's about time this sort of person be rudely awakened to the fact that the government isn't our Mommy, isn't our Daddy, it isn't even a member of our family. Government is our servant, and if the servant turns into a thief, it's time to get rid of the thief and start over.

Regards

[Jabba the Nutt]

Taking property from rightful owners is called stealing. Jonathan Chait thinks that is not immoral. I’d like to know, has Jonathan Chait ever been stolen from and did he report the theft to the police. If he did, he’s a hypocrite. Okay, everyone let’s take Jonathan Chait’s property, he’s rich enough and it’s not immoral. A win/win all the way around.

[Nateman]

Nothing you can say or do will ever sway this writer. He is invincibly ignorant.

[Durus]

I'm not convinced that the author actually believes what he writes. Few intelligent people on the left actually believe in the ideology they espouse. That is what makes them so dangerous. Their entire ideology is made up to be attractive to people that don't want to think, or can't think, in order for them to gain power. The left’s advocates are the equivalent of snake oil salesmen or slick tongued preachers that drive around in expensive sports cars. I wonder what kind of car the author drives. No doubt as his earnings are the result of luck and not the result of work on his part (it's certainly can't be credited to talent) he drives an inexpensive used car, lives humbly, and donates the majority of his salary to those less “fortunate”.