6 ms·
Ayn Rand Institute accepts $1m PPP loan from The State
- chews 6y agoI believe she started with doing plays in cities using WPA money to fund them, they were mock jury trials performed as stage plays to entice the human into more civic behavior. Wonder what they are gonna do with this handout?
- nickff 6y agoThe play you are referring to is "Night of January 16th", but I cannot see any reference to your comments as to its funding (in the Wikipedia article). Do you have a citation for that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_January_16th https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_January_16th
- gojomo 6y agoIf you want these "Payroll Protection Program" loans forgiven – that is, to receive the 'handout' – the funds must to be spent 75%+ on payroll expenses during the covered period, with a remainder spent on mortgages/rent/interest/utilities. So that's what this recipient, & every other, will be spending the money on – unless they choose to either repay it, or defraud the program.
- Taniwha 6y agoRand herself went on welfare when she was unable to hack it as an author, this is sort of life imitating art
- eirini1 6y agoRand's education was made possible by communists - both monetarily and also by fighting for the right of women to enter higher education. Always deliciously ironic to see.
- thephyber 6y agoThis is an important point and should not be downvoted. It's not possible to accurately argue "she would have received a better/more efficient education in a free market society" because that's a counterfactual. In fact, it's probably more likely that she dedicated her whole life to overreacting against socialist economics in her writing precisely because she had been exposed to Stalinism/communism.
- nickff 6y agoI'm having some difficulty understanding your statement: >"It's not possible to accurately argue "she would have received a better/more efficient education in a free market society" because that's a counterfactual." Do you mean to say that nobody can ever argue that a historical counterfactual might have been preferable? This would seem to be a rationalization of history, through a refusal to consider alternatives.
- thephyber 6y agoPerhaps I can rephrase: it's not possible to test the counterfactual, therefore to know the accuracy of the statement. Obviously anyone can make any statement/argument, but without the ability to verify it, it doesn't carry much weight.
- beaner 6y agoRand's books gave her more than sufficient income. She took social security because she paid for it.
- worik 6y agoFrom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Later_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Later_years "after her initial objections, she allowed social worker Evva Pryor, an employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare" I do not think it was wrong of her to take government handouts in her later years. What was wrong, is wrong, is how her acolytes continue in the modern day breaking down that same system for others. Evil evil people. Confused and and sad old lady.
- sp332 6y agoI get that this is funny, but given that we all are going to pay for this, we might as well get what we can from it, right? Actually this is the argument they used: https://newideal.aynrand.org/to-take-or-not-to-take/ https://newideal.aynrand.org/to-take-or-not-to-take/
- hirundo 6y agoThat is the obvious argument that to take back is not hypocrisy in this case. It seems persuasive to me. I'm willing to take back what has been taken from me, when I can get away with it. It's just self defense. I wonder why people reject it out of hand.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThis is not based on future taxation, but instead on increasing the money supply that would in theory increase inflation. Unless the Ayn Rand institute has massive cash reserves, it is a huge positive for them. The rest of the article is complete confabulation trying to say that if the government didn't do anything the crisis wouldn't have been a big issue, which is a speculative assumption that goes contrary to evidence. In any case, if the government didn't create a PPP, they would be much worse off. Therefore, it is hypocrisy and not restitution.
- beaner 6y agoDoes it go contrary to evidence? We have prior examples of pandemics where things were not shut down and the economy did not collapse.
- sudosysgen 6y agoThey are specifically saying that the fact that the epidemic has ripped through the country is because the government intervened too much. Not the economic impact, simply the progression of the epidemic. The economy did not collapse in the vast majority of countries, due to governmental intervention. Those countries also have much less infection.
- 1MachineElf 6y agoCriticizing the Ayn Rand Institute for taking a PPP loan is flawed in the same way criticizing Ayn Rand herself for taking Social Security benefits during her retirement is flawed. In both cases, there are things the government forced upon Americans. You cannot avoid paying the taxes that fund social security without going to prison. In many cases, you could not avoid going to prison for keeping a non-essential business open through the pandemic. It's not a hypocritical endorsement of welfare expansion to simply take back from the state what they forcibly took away from you.
- beaner 6y agoI don't know why you'd be downvoted, this is absolutely right and explicitly what she believed. That if you've had something taken from you it is absolutely your right to take it back. To not would be self-sacrifice - for what? You can still argue that it shouldn't have been taken in the first place. It's consistent.
- TrackerFF 6y agoDid the government force it upon Americans, or did Americans democratically agree that this is the system they wanted? I know it's easy to throw around "force", but in the end, one lives in a democratic country.
- beaner 6y agoThat the policy was arrived at democratically doesn't change the fact that if something is taken from you, it is morally consistent to take it back, while arguing that the policy of taking in the first place is wrong.
- thephyber 6y agoI think they are using "force" in the "the state has a monopoly on the use of force" sense. Also, I think it's fine to argue against the current state of laws. It's not as if we are actually a democracy (at the federal level, the founding fathers didn't give us any direct democracy tools and those who could vote were an elite subset of the population). Even today we suffer from bad laws drafted by special interests and voted into existence by those who accept campaign contributions from those who drafted the laws. There is little in the form of "direct democracy" in our current system of legislation.
- dang 6y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755583 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23757033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23757033
- worik 6y ago“the government has no wealth of its own…. It can only redistribute the wealth of others.” Not only hypocrisy but also economic illiteracy. Money != Wealth. How terrifying that people like this get so powerful in a super state like the USA. Craven greed mixed with such refusal to deal with what is real mixed with heartlessness on a industrial scale. Breathtaking
- nickff 6y ago>"How terrifying that people like this get so powerful in a super state like the USA" How powerful do you think the Ayn Rand Institute is? From what I can see they are a marginally influential think-tank.
- worik 6y agoVery powerful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_influenced_by_Ayn_Rand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_influenced_by_A...
- tmaly 6y agowow that is pretty funny. I thought they were philosophically opposed to government handouts?
- nickff 6y agoCan they also refuse to pay taxes for programs they disagree with? If not, it seems disingenuous to say they should pay for programs, then avoid them. By that logic, anyone who unsuccessfully campaigns against tax cuts should continue to pay the previous (higher) tax rate.
- thephyber 6y agoBy choosing to lobby for less taxation/redistribution and taking advantage of the benefits they lobby against they are folding on their principles. And yes, the same for those who argue against tax cuts. They give up their principles by not sticking to them when they are inconvenient. But there's also a practical concern: it's not possible to keep track of all counterfactuals / hypotheticals when it comes to tax/welfare laws. In Ayn Rand's case, she couldn't afford to live without social security in her later years (if the reports I read are to be believed). We frequently don't have the means to be consistent in our principled stands.
- nickff 6y agoIt seems like your 'practical concern' results in a ratchet against those in favor of simpler systems (of taxation, regulation, and welfare). The advocates of complexity can always renege, while the advocates for simplicity must always suffer.
- jdkee 6y agolaughs in larry david
- foobarbazetc 6y agoI don’t really care for either libertarians or Ayn Rand, but as long as it saved jobs, no matter where, it served its purpose.