My friend Chris was one of the people who commented on my previous post concerning Ayn Rand. I spent a good portion of my time at work today discussing Chris's comment with Gwen, and after mulling it over with her for a while, I decided to respond to it in its own post. Because I know half of you won't bother to search up his comment on your own, so I've copied it for you below:
I am perfectly fine with people living on charity. If buisnesses refuse to pay adequate wages while benifiting from tax breaks and a regressive tax system, while the majority of new improvements and developments come from sales taxes which are hardest on the poorest of Americans, I am perfectly fine with people living on charity. As Melissa would say, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. Why work for a company that cares nothing for you and pays you subsistence standard wages, when you can more than subsist on welfare, become a sofa Diva, and get a check sent to you every month. Hell enjoy sex in what ever fashion you want, pop out a few kids, and let the good times roll. I know that sounds a little socalist of me, but haveing seen the social fabric in France and participated within their family unit, its incredible to say the least. In Claire family, we eat every meal together, the parents have time to spend with their children and do, and there seems to be very few social anxiety disorders. I am all about time over money, and if charities or the government can help you achieve that form of lifestyle through higher taxes then I am all for it. Of course, I also believe that it can stifle productivity and drive, and if there is only one truth in this world, French people do not like to work. Well, Claire is a little different, but her buisness is a little different. With that said, French people travel a great deal on their pittance of wages which is more than I can say for Americans. Oh well, there is more to read. And yes, Jane, I do not belueve that Rand would care for your lifestyle, but at least you are following what makes you happy. I used to share an office with a guy who loved both Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson and had pictures of both of them posted all over the walls, it was a misserable experience to say the least. Oh well, hope that everything is allright. Christopher.
Oh my. Chris, I'm definitely going to have to disagree with you here. You know that I very much value time over money; however, I don't expect anyone - not my parents, not you, not the US government - to be responsible for funding my free time. I am planning to be unemployed from August 2007 through roughly January 2008, and I will fund this fantastic stretch of free time with money saved from my current salary. I cannot imagine deciding to take six months off from working, simply expecting that someone (or some government entity) would support me.
Certainly there are plenty of cases where individuals merit receiving support in lieu of earning an income via employment; however, simply *wanting* to be provided for should never qualify a person for aid.
What if the masses really were to follow your advice? What if everyone were to cease working and instead spend their days waiting for that government check to arrive? Were that to occur, not only would the government lack the funds to support this massive welfare state (or the people to administer it!), but there would be no domestically produced goods whatsoever. I mean, how could there be, if no people were working? Even if the government resorted to printing plenty of money to distribute to the masses, such currency would be incredibly devalued; it would be devalued to such an extent that it would be useless in international trade. Your state would collapse and your people would starve.
Of course, that is an extreme example; there is no way that the entire population of the United States would simply decide to stop working and seek welfare benefits.
Like I said above, there are certainly cases where people merit government and/or charity support. However, with the exception of those disabled to the extent that self-sufficiency is impossible, I do not believe that any welfare should be long-term or permanent. I personaly believe that the US welfare system needs a major overhaul in order to prevent capable individuals from becoming, as Chris put it, a sofa diva, sitting on the couch, living off the government dime.
As to whether or not Ayn Rand would approve of my lifestyle... well, some of her main tenets, as presented in We The Living, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are as follows:
~Don't live your life pandering to the expectations of others
~Don't sacrifice your beliefs or morals for either money or social standing
~Be self sufficient
Hmmmm....
3 comments:
Humm,
While my own examples were a little extreme, I think that I was much more referring to the large underbelly of American society that suffers from law wage industries that require long hours, offer no health care plans, or retirement benefits for that matter, and receive superfluous amounts of tax breaks and incentives to perform such a task. If this were my only option, then yes, I would have no problem living off either private or public charity be it from a non-profit or the welfare system. I think that your comments about the government supporting such a large group of people are both misguided and miscalculated. First, not everyone suffers within that situation and not everyone desires time over money. The majority of Americans are socialized into a system that values consumption and in many ways Americans have become Consumer whores. I being one of them. In such a society, the incentive to work is driven by a desire for better material wealth as exemplified through goods and stuff. This contributes to the stark rise in starter mansions that dot the landscape of every community that I visit. So with that said, a large chunk of people are removed from the equation. While many of these will probably exist within the middle and upper classes, some of them will also exist within the working poor which will also take a substantial amount of people away from the equation. The group that you are left with are substantial but relatively small when compared to the rest of the population. If there are no avenues open to them that offer a path to maintaining a realistic living wage then why should they work? Where is the incentive to work if you can neither survive nor support yourself on the money that you make? The reality is that most people have the affinity to work. So why shouldn’t there be some realistic system to provide them with monetary, housing, health care, and food support as they rise up the ladder. While welfare does some of this, in many cases, the monetary funding and food rashions that they get are cut off way too soon so that the incentive to return to those jobs that “support America’s exports” are largely minimized. I could comment more on the so called export/ domestic industries, but I personally think that the increased rate of outsourcing and the rise in domestic and service industries being fastfood speaks for itself. As far as a significantly devalued currency, you of all people should know how incredibly devalued the dollar has become in the last ten years as compared to worldwide monetary standards. At what point should we care about our so called industries when they do not care about us. More jobs does not mean a better standard of living and if those jobs are neither guaranteed or certain because of the threat that they will be moved to Mexico, China, or India where is the incentive to provide these businesses with tax breaks. We provide billions in subsidies to many of these industries every year and get only the promise of low wage jobs in return. Beyond this, I have had family values shoved down my throat by the American media moguls at Fox news and the Republican constituencies in whatever region that I have been living, and I just have to ask, what is pro-family about requiring many Americans to work forty hour week then take a second job just to stretch out the money and survive from week to week. The majority of these being the women that you so profoundly profess to support in your blog every week. Of course, the majority of these tend to be either black or Hispanic, but I think that recent census data prove that white women also rank as a 1/3 of the working poor within the United States. Many of these women receive little monetary support from either charities or the government, they are forced to pay ridiculous amounts of money for child care each week, and they either go without health care or go to a clinic that really only has the capacity to treat STD’s. Beyond this, if we truly profess to be a society that values families, why not provide paid leaves for both men and women who are pregnant themselves or whose spouses are pregnant? They do in France? Both the women and men are allowed to take up to three months off for the birth of their child. I think that women get significantly more time than men, but I do not remember the exact numbers. Why not allow for longer lunch breaks if women or men wanted to take time out to have lunch with their children? Why not allow programs that would offer some women or men the chance to volunteer at their children’s schools which seem to be incredibly over burdened at the moment. You have told me time and again that we do not have the money to pay for such programs, and yet we have billions to shell out for an oil war in Iraq that solely benefits but a few corporations within the United States, we pay billions in subsidies to multi-national corporations that feed off the most vulnerable of American society and only benefit either corporate share holders or maybe the family or individual that owns the business- lets see a number of companies come to mind here but I think that Enron and Kenneth lay suffices. So we can’t support these types of programs, I think that we can not afford to support them. France has an amazing social net and while there are some problems with building productivity or even desire to work in some individuals, their economy does not seem to be doing to bad. Hum, I think that their currency is significantly higher than ours at the moment. This is not to say that France does not have their problems as they do, but to deny the possibility of social safety nets is a little extreme and shows how both Regan and Bush II have largely shaped and limited public discourse within this country on the working people of America. It seems that this has largely influenced your own perceptions. While my first essay had a bit of sarcasm and humor within it, this essay reflects my true values and opinions. Of course, I do not believe that everyone should sit around all day and live off the government, but I think that its funny that would be the obvious outcome of such policies. People are different. They have different desires, wants, and motivations. If we truly desire to be the open and loving society that we profess to be, then why not open options to all of the populace including the large underbelly of American workers. Hope this does not offend, its just the opinion of one person in a sea of opinions. Hope that all is well,
Christopher
Charity is not the same as having a good social welfare system. Charity is what you need when you have a shitty social welfare system, as in the US. A good social welfare system ensures that everyone's basic needs are met. It is not a disincentive to work.
Megan in Sweden
"As Melissa would say, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free."
I would just like to point out two things 1) I do not usually say this -- I was the free cow for about 7 years and 2) My family actually did buy a cow when they had been receiving the milk for free. The cow then preceeded to starve because they didn't have the money to feed it. Eventually it was slaughtered. Don't blame me, I'm a vegetarian.
Melissa
Post a Comment