Ayn Rand regarded taking government benefits as the moral equivalent of theft. Then she got sick.
Ayn Rand, a best-selling author, discovered, when she was diagnosed with lung cancer, that “doctors cost a lot more than books earn,” and applied for Medicare. She did so under her married name, to avoid embarrassment; after all, her official position was that people who accept government benefits are “moochers” and “parasites” and that it would be better to starve to death than to live on what she regarded as stolen money.
So I guess a collectivist is just an Objectivist who discovers she needs expensive medical treatment.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
Priceless. We need a good quote about this, something parallel to there are no atheists in foxholes
And she filed for Social Security. Libertarianism is a bankrupt ideology, water is wet, fire is hot, etc. Film at 11.
In Galt’s Gulch, she could have gotten cigarettes with the sign of the dollar, and these do not cause lung cancer.
Keith, the quote you want is, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged".
A newfound prison reform advocate is a conservative who has been sent to prison.
It wouldn't surprise if Ayn Rand didn't break down on her death bed and slobber for Jesus…
Everything about her (except for her infamous lack of hygiene and halitosis) reeks of fraud.
Earlier version contains a typo. Please delete it.
1. “Category: Watching conservatives”.
Do you equate “libertarian” and “conservative”? Rand was no conservative.
2. (Mark): “I guess a collectivist is just an Objectivist who discovers she needs expensive medical treatment.”
(Lao Tzu): “The wise man does not need to live.”
3. (Mark):”Ayn Rand, a best-selling author, discovered, when she was diagnosed with lung cancer, that 'doctors cost a lot more than books earn,' and applied for Medicare.”
If best-selling authors earn more than the US mean income and if the income of a best-selling author cannot meet that author’s “needs”, then how can the country, in aggregate, afford medical treatment for the population, in aggregate, without subsidies from outside the country? And if the US is the wealthiest country on Earth, whom does Professor Kleiman suppose will subsidize medical care for the US population? Mars?
"If best-selling authors earn more than the US mean income and if the income of a best-selling author cannot meet that author’s 'needs,' then how can the country, in aggregate, afford medical treatment for the population, in aggregate, without subsidies from outside the country?"
Not everyone requires medical treatment as expensive as that required to treat lung cancer.
Henry: That's right. The cost of healthcare varies enormously depending on the condition or absence of one. Therefore freeriders shd be able to sign on for govt. subsidized healthcare when and if they need it. Likewise they can pay for teachers, police and soldiers on an as-needed basis. It's about freedom.
Drew, I don't understand where you got the idea that I favor freeriders. I favor the individual mandate, which would bring in enough money without subsidies from outside the country, as Malcolm said would be necessary. Or, even better, I would favor paying for health care out of tax dollars, as we do for teachers, police, and soldiers.
Health insurance means that those who don't get expensively sick help pay the costs of those who do. That's why it's called "insurance."
Yes, in principle libertarianism and conservatism are different. In practice, both of those labels apply in U.S. politics to people who want rich people to get richer and poor people to get poorer. Anytime conservatives want to refudiate Rand Paul – or libertarians want to refuse to vote for people like George W. Bush – I'm all ears. In the meantime, I don't see much of practical distinction.
Mark,
There are plenty of conservatives of the American Scene or American Conservative variety, and plenty of libertarians of the Will Wilkerson or Radley Balko variety. Our own Brett Bellmore is often independent of either Rand Paul or George Bush.
The problem is that there are plenty more feudalists who prefer to call themselves "conservative" to appeal to the small-penis brigade, or "libertarian" to appeal to those who read without moving their lips.
1. (Henry): "Not everyone requires medical treatment as expensive as that required to treat lung cancer."
(Mark): "Health insurance means that those who don’t get expensively sick help pay the costs of those who do."
Here we disagree. Every human is potentially infinitely expensive. Most of us will reach a point where each incremental increase in life expectation will cost more than the last increment, without limit. "Need" is a very elastic concept.
2. (Mark): "Yes, in principle libertarianism and conservatism are different. In practice, both of those labels apply in U.S. politics to people who want rich people to get richer and poor people to get poorer."
The UC system defrauds taxpayers if Professor Kleiman presents similar arguments to his students. Here's a reading list for Professor Kleiman's intellectually deprived students:
a) Milton Friedman, __Capitalism and Freedom__
b) Walter Williams, __The State Against Blacks__
c) Thomas Sowell, __Knowledge and Decisions__
d) Peter Bauer, __Dissent on Development__
e) Robert Heilbroner, __The Worldly Philosophers__
Free marketeers argue that "What works?" is an empirical question which only an experiment (a competitive market) can answer. A State assignment of title (private property) confers the right to control a resource, which assignment of control includes the power to transfer title (i.e., to sell the resource) to anyone of the titleholder's choice, on terms mutually agreed upon. The system of title and contract law, which combines authority over resources and local knowledge, creates incentives to discover and to serve wants of others, as Adam Smith explained.
(Mark): "Anytime conservatives want to refudiate Rand Paul – or libertarians want to refuse to vote for people like George W. Bush – I’m all ears. In the meantime, I don’t see much of practical distinction."
So long as you use "conservative" to include non-economic issues or concerns (drugs, prostitution, environmental protection), there's a huge difference between "conservative" and "libertarian".
This has already been debunked in multiple places; they only thought it was hypocritical because they didn't, um, know much about Ayn Rand, and certainly didn't bother to do anything foolish like look up her position on Social Security and Medicare. Which was that, having had the money taken from you by force, you were entitled to file for the benefits. Moreover, the root article makes it sound as if a woman paying taxes/filing for social security under her married name in the middle of the century was some sort of elaborate dodge that Ayn Rand thought up to evade detection, rather than the social and legal norm.
I'm most definitely no Rand fan, but I feel like people should maybe know a little bit about her positions on various issues before deriding her "priceless" hypocrisy.
Rand Paul is no libertarian on drugs. He'd just prefer state governments to lock up users (including of medical marijuana) instead of the feds.
Malcolm,
I think you are misapprehending our host. Mark isn't arguing that there is no difference between libertarianism and conservatism. He is arguing that there is no difference between most people who call themselves "libertarians" and most people who call themselves "conservatives." I agreed with him, but pointed out that there are a few self-styled libertarians and conservatives who are not poseurs. But they are, at best, exceptions to the rule.
Now if you are going to disagree with Mark's premise, please do so. It's a bit hard. Most teabaggers were loyal Bushbots until 2008, except for some kvetching about Medicare Part D.
Megan,
Are you meaning to say that Ayn Rand was a social and legal conformist? Whoda thunkit?
Thank you Megan. I was just about to post the same reasoning when I read your comment.
Of course, the libertarians' position that mandatory participation in entitlement programs is unconstitutional should not preclude them from benefits when unreasonably forced to contribute. Consistency would be filing suit to preclude such mandate in the first place. As for the economics of mandates, any actuary worth his FSA would tell you that Malcolm has it right and Henry has it wrong.
So the individual mandate in PPACA has to go, and since its ludicrous CBO scoring rests in part on that mandate, so does the whole law. Oh, wait a minute, a Florida judge just took care of that.
We'll be celebrating that decision on my blog!
Redwave72 says: "Malcolm has it right and Henry has it wrong."
Ridiculous. The quote we're discussing is ”Ayn Rand, a best-selling author, discovered, when she was diagnosed with lung cancer, that ‘doctors cost a lot more than books earn,’ and applied for Medicare.” Unless you prove to me that Ayn Rand was flat broke when she applied for Medicare, then the reasonable interpretation of what she meant was "doctors cost a lot more than I choose to spend", not "doctors cost more than I have the ability to pay".
The country has managed to survive this long providing adequate medical care for 90% of its citizens without relying on foreign subsidies. I'm pretty sure we can afford to expand that to cover the last 10%. (Of course, it would only get easier to afford it if we got rid of the inefficient insurance middleman and paid for medical care with taxes.)
Didn't Rand live in NYC? I wonder if her apartment was rent-controlled, and if it was, what her rationale for living in it was.
At any rate, I'm sure she kept careful tabs on how much money had been taken from her "by force" and didn't accept a penny more in SS/Medicare than was necessary to call it even (rolls eyes).
Megan misses the point on this, as is traditional: if Rand had simply opposed Medicare but taken the benefits, that would have been one thing. But the gravamen of her complaint was that the receipt of was not merely theft: it was that it destroyed the soul and the work ethic of those superior John and Jane Galts of the world. John Galt's oath was
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Which apparently only applies if you don't need something from other men.
Even if that something is just the return of what somebody took from you?
Let's suppose that the government established a nation-wide system of 'free' soup kitchens, and I objected to this. Obviously, it would be hypocrisy for me to eat there, right?
Wrong. Where's the government getting the money to buy the soup? From me, among others. They have directly diminished my ability to buy my own soup. Perhaps fatally so, to the point where I can't afford it at all. Am I then obligated to starve to death, to avoid being a hypocrite?
Rand was in something of that position, I think, and thus as least partially insulated against the charge of hypocrisy. Maybe, without the taxes taken from her to fund medicaid, she COULD have afforded her own health care. I don't know. But it's not an open and shut case.
Fine, Rand used the gov't teat to get back what was taken from her.
I'm assuming that means that once she had used her share out of the system she stopped using Medicare to make sure she did not become a “moocher” and/or “parasite” ?
Megan McArdle–"having had the money taken from you by force, you were entitled to file for the benefits"
Brett Bellmore–"just the return of what somebody took from you"
My understanding was that Ms. Rand's income after 1965 (when Medicare started) was from book royalties, which are not subject to the Medicare payroll tax.
Did Ms. Rand ever pay Medicare taxes at all? If not, then Ms. McArdle and Mr. Bellmore's defense of her behavior seems rather hollow excuse-making.
The point is not that Ms. Rand was somehow a bad person for taking Medicare benefits.
It's that she propagated a silly ideology, but had better sense than to live by it.
Rather like the academic philosopher who denies the reality of material objects, but nonetheless looks both ways before stepping into the street.
… but, like the academic philosopher
Thanks Passing By for putting clarity on this issue!
Megan,
This has already been debunked in multiple places
Debunked? You mean it's not true?
Brett,
Maybe, without the taxes taken from her to fund medicaid, she COULD have afforded her own health care. I don’t know. But it’s not an open and shut case.
What would you guess? Do you think the money she paid in Medicare taxes, assuming she paid any, was more or less than her care cost? You can allow for savings, compound interest, etc.
(Ebenezer): "Now if you are going to disagree with Mark’s premise, please do so. It’s a bit hard. Most teabaggers were loyal Bushbots until 2008, except for some kvetching about Medicare Part D."
It's easy.
1. The Tea Party did not exist during the Bush presidency.
2. The Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute complained for years before 2009 of Federal spending (remember Porkbusters?).
3. Steve Forbes was the free market candidate in the 2000 Republican primary.
4. "Teabaggers", huh? My earlier response did not appear. Just as well. Incivility contributes to the climate of violence, doncha know?. I guess incivility passes on this site only if the perpetrator is a socialist. Very well, the next mass homicide is on Mark's and Ebenezer's account.
(MCD): "The country has managed to survive this long providing adequate medical care for 90% of its citizens…"
No. All care is inadequate. Everybody dies.
Megan — So, she did, or did not, have the foresight and personal discipline to purchase health insurance on the private market? Yes, or no? So when this short-sighted and personally irresponsible person got sick, the state stepped up and took care of her needs?
Is that, or is that not, exactly what this supposed patron saint of your philosophy spent her whole life despising and decrying? She turned out to be a despicable parasite by every measure she promulgated.
(PS Yeah and the same thought occurred immediately to me as to everyone else here in response to your 'coercion' argument — she could have taken the same amount in medical benefits as she paid in. Sure, duh. But no. She thought the state's idea was a much, much better idea than the one she spent her life preaching)
Meggerz Sez "I’m most definitely no Rand fan"
Wait, didn't you once blog under the name Jane Galt? Again "Libertarianism is a bankrupt ideology, water is wet, fire is hot, etc. Film at 11."
Case closed.
From the Letters of Ayn Rand
"September 3, 1964
Dear Mrs. Broberg:
I hope that you will not find yourself in need of public assistance. But permit me to say that if you do need it, you should not hesitate to call on it, because you are certainly entitled to it-in view of the taxes you have paid and in view of the fact that today’s political system makes it impossible to provide for his old age. This does not mean that the welfare state is right, but so long as you oppose the welfare state, you should not be its first victim and should not be made to suffer while your own hard-earned money is being spent to support bums all over the world."
So according to Kleiman Ms. Rand, who's philosophy (objectivism) is diametrically opposed to "altruism" has some how contradicted herself by taking the benefits to which she was entitled?
Malcolm Kirkpatrick: All care is inadequate. Everybody dies.
That's just stupid.
Yeah, that's pretty much the most inane remark I've seen in the past week. Apparently the only goal of medical care is to make people immortal. Since nobody actually ends up living forever, all medical care is inadequate.
Of course, the foolishness of that remark faces stiff competition from Malcolm's other comment immediately before that one: "The Tea Party did not exist during the Bush presidency."
Yeah, that's kind of the point. The people who are the TP-ers today certainly existed during the Bush presidency … but the TP itself didn't. Because most of those people were perfectly happy to vote for Bush and the GOP. You haven't contradicted Mr Scrooge; you've just confirmed his point.
"Yeah, that’s pretty much the most inane remark I’ve seen in the past week. Apparently the only goal of medical care is to make people immortal. Since nobody actually ends up living forever, all medical care is inadequate."
Indeed, that's exactly right. There's no basis in medical care for saying, "This dude is going to die, save him.", and "That dude is going to die, who cares?". The goal of medical care, ultimately, is to keep people in good health, and dead people aren't in good health. Health care always eventually fails. Until we can restore the aged to youth, (A realistic goal we'll probably achieve in this century.) and raise the dead, (Rather more problematic.) all medical care will be inadequate.
"Yeah, that’s kind of the point. The people who are the TP-ers today certainly existed during the Bush presidency … but the TP itself didn’t. Because most of those people were perfectly happy to vote for Bush and the GOP. You haven’t contradicted Mr Scrooge; you’ve just confirmed his point."
They existed during the Bush Presidency, and they were getting more and more pissed off as it went on. Takes time for being pissed off to reach critical mass, and a movement to be formed. Apparently you think the tea party should have sprung into existence, fully formed, a minute after Bush first took office?
(Malcolm): All care is inadequate. Everybody dies."
(MCD): "That’s just stupid."
Please elaborate. Define "need" as the word applies to medical care.
Until we can […] raise the dead […] all medical care will be inadequate.
Congratulations, you've just done your bit to erode the utility of language. If all medical care is explicitly defined as inadequate, the terms "inadequate" and "adequate" are made useless as modifiers to "medical care."
They existed during the Bush Presidency, and they were getting more and more pissed off as it went on. Takes time for being pissed off to reach critical mass, and a movement to be formed.
Kind of convenient that it took exactly eight years for that process to work itself out, no? There was plenty to be outraged about between Bush's ascendancy in Jan. 2001 and the November 2006 elections. Where was the Tea Party in 2006? Oh, that's right, it hadn't formed yet, because Bush was still in power and all the future TP-ers were happily voting GOP.
Apparently you think the tea party should have sprung into existence, fully formed, a minute after Bush first took office?
Nice example of the fallacy of the excluded middle there, Brett. Is there really no other possibility between "TP outrage peaks on January 20, 2001" and "TP outrage peaks after Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009"?
Come on, Brett. I know you can do better than this.
Please elaborate. Define “need” as the word applies to medical care.
Malcolm, there are many possible definitions of "need" as the word applies to medical care. I don't see any reason why we should be obligated to settle on one particular definition here and now. That doesn't change the point that your specific claim ("all [medical] care is inadequate because everybody dies") is remarkably silly. Are you really wanting to keep dwelling on that? Because it doesn't really improve your reputation on this site.
(J): "Where was the Tea Party in 2006? Oh, that’s right, it hadn’t formed yet, because Bush was still in power and all the future TP-ers were happily voting GOP."
Oh? Then why did Republicans lose the House in 2006?
(J): "your specific claim ('all [medical] care is inadequate because everybody dies') is remarkably silly. Are you really wanting to keep dwelling on that? Because it doesn’t really improve your reputation on this site."
I'll just have to wait for public opinion to catch up, then.
From an earlier comment:…
2. (Mark): “I guess a collectivist is just an Objectivist who discovers she needs expensive medical treatment.”
(Lao Tzu): “The wise man does not need to live.”
Taxpayers of one medium-sized US State could probably supply one band-aid and one aspirin tablet per year for the entire Earth's population. The entire Earth's GDP is inadequate to keep even one person alive forever. For almost all individuals, at any age, there is some additional preventative measure or post-diagnosis medical treatment that will enhance life expectancy. In the course of a normal life, the cost of an additional increase T of life rises with age. For any amount $X you spend on an increment T, there is almost always some additional amount $Y you could spend to achieve an increment T+i seconds of life.
How much is it worth to keep some 95-year-old, unresponsive lump of meat at 37 C for another week? How much is it worth to keep a featureless newborn ball of fur with organs inside on life support for twenty years?
Oh? Then why did Republicans lose the House in 2006?
Rather obviously not because of a massive defection of future TP-ers to the Democrats. The TP is far more conservative than the rest of the electorate, and conservatives voted overwhelmingly Republican in 2006.
The Republicans lost the House in 2006 because of greatly increased turnout and enthusiasm among Democrats and non-conservative Independents.
The suggestion that a silent majority of unorganized TP-ers put Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker's chair in 2006 goes way beyond "ludicrous".
J,
In light of this blog's alleged theme, you might want to check your facts:
A lot of future Tea Partiers classify themselves as independents;
A lot of future Tea Partiers either sat out 2006 or actually did vote to oust GOP Congressmen who allowed spending to get out of control and contributed to said disaster through earmarks;
A lot of future Tea Partiers again evidenced indifference in 2008, and many did vote for Obama or sat it out rather than voting for McCain.
This combined with the Obama campaign's extraordinary ground performance to elect him.
By 2010, the Tea Party folks had learned who the real spenders are. But the GOP had better not take them for granted. That is why the pressure is still on.
Okay, I'll pretend to take that argument seriously for a moment.
I am not aware of any poll that asked TP-ers which congressional candidate they voted for in 2006. However, we can draw inferences from poll questions that have been asked and answered:
(1) 73% of TP-ers self-identify as "conservative", 20% as "moderate", and 4% as "liberal" (source). In addition, on issue after issue, TP-ers report opinions that are more conservative than the Republican Party as a whole (source).
(2) In the 2006 election, self-identified "conservative" voters voted overwhelmingly for the GOP, by a 58-point margin (source).
It's true that many self-identified "independent" voters swung to the Democrats in 2006, and that some (not a majority) of TP-ers call themselves "independent". But self-identified "independent" TP-ers represent the most conservative and most ideological segment of "independents". Those people most assuredly voted Republican in 2006. As Andrew Kohut remarks in the post I cited above, "It is no exaggeration to say that the views of the least ideological voters decided this election for the Democrats. "
Claims that the ultra-conservative voters who form the bulk of the TP somehow gave control of Congress to Nancy Pelosi in 2006 are, as I said, beyond ludicrous. You can only revise history so far before it breaks.
My impression, for what it's worth, is that many of those who embraced the label "Tea Party" included traditional Republicans (especially the more religiously motivated Republicans) who realized that the second President Bush had sullied the Republican brand and who wished to distance themselves from Bush II.
Yes, I agree, though I’d just note that they didn’t get around to that “distancing” until Bush was either already gone (in most cases) or at least on the way out. Based on exit polls, it’s quite likely that the vast majority of them happily voted Republican in 2002, 2004, and 2006, even as the Bush II administration was turning a surplus into a deficit and trampling the constitution underfoot. That kind of stuff didn’t actually matter to anyone until there was a Democrat in office.
J,
Free marketeers did not have to vote for Democrats to give Democrats control of the House in 2006, they just had to stay home. So it’s not just a question of the political orientation of voters, but of eligible voters who stayed home.
My personal observations coincide with Js. Anecdotal evidence can never be confused with statistics, but my fairly wide-ranging reading of various (supposedly) non-political message boards, as well as observation of my many conservative friend, has had me scratching my head for the last two years. Where WERE all these people during those 8 years? There was surely enough to complain about for conservatives – fiscal conservatives, anti-‘big govt’ conservatives, anti- ‘bending the constitution to take away freedoms conservatives.’ It’s just amazing that they weren’t yelling bloody murder then, but suddenly sprang forth in full cry after 2008 – and if you ask them, they just say ‘well, we didn’t like what Bush was doing either, he made some mistakes.’ Really???
(Bev): “Really???”
No. Google “porkbusters”. Fiscal conservatives like Ace and Instapundit were screaming.
I don’t need to google “porkbusters”; I was around at the time. Neither Ace nor Instapundit is a fiscal conservative — neither one was even remotely upset about the deficit, just about the prospects of spending on stuff that they didn’t like. Both were perfectly happy to have the government going deep into debt for the sake of warfare and tax breaks for the wealthy. In any case, neither Ace nor Instapundit broke ranks with Bush or the GOP in any substantive way.
As for “staying home on election day”, that’s pretty weak tea (if you’ll excuse the pun). The point of the argument here is that the TP-ers were exceptionally forgiving of Bush and the GOP in 2002-2008, then suddenly became exceptionally critical of Obama and the Democrats in 2010. The suggestion that they were disaffected in 2006 and chose to stay home doesn’t really contradict that at all. Even if we believed your claims, think about it for a moment: their reaction to being disappointed in Bush was to stay home on election day, but their reaction to being disappointed in Obama was a collective temper tantrum of massive proportions.
We all lived through the past decade. You can’t rewrite history and turn the TP-ers into some kind of principled, intellectually consistent, rational, fiscal conservatives. The double standard at work here is pretty obvious.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. All I know is that in this hopelessly blue state (NY), Conservative morale and participation were not in evidence in 2006 and worse in 2008. In 2010, the CD’s normally in play were back in play. Whether you attribute that to the poor GOP performance in 2006-2008 or the absurd fiscal train wreck engineered by Obama/Pelosi/Reid is up to you. I’m sure all of those elements were in play. Incidentally, in 2010, it was disillusioned young Obama voters who chose not to participate.
No matter how you slice it, Tea Party fiscal concerns were shared across much of the political spectrum in 2010, whether people so identified themselves or not. The one exception seems to be in elite academia, where there appears to be widespread immunity to common sense.