Ayn Rand and Social Security

“Never think of pain or danger or enemies a moment longer than is necessary to fight them.” Ayn Rand
The enemy of the truth is the lie. But to find the truth you must be willing to see the whole truth no matter how painful it is. Patrick Henry said, "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
If we will not seek the whole truth we become the enemy of those who hate the light and choose to sit in darkness.
What did Rand miss and are we missing it too because we lack some knowledge that is kept from us?
If so, then we must always be willing to ask, What is the truth?
“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” Ayn Rand.
Download Review of Ayn Rand Wallace interview

Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand, the novelist, wrote two major works, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which were best sellers. She was a philosophers who was called revolutionary and a rebel. She called her ideas Objectivism, meaning a philosophy based on objective reality. That reality exists as an objective absolute outside of the influence of mere human opinion.

she sees herself "primarily the creator of a new code of morality which has so far been believed impossible. Namely, a morality not based on faith, not on arbitrary whim, not on emotion, not on arbitrary edicts, mystical or social, but on reason."

Of course for that "reason" to be ”Right Reason it must be the product of the true objective reality and not subject to the bias and prejudice opinions of men.

This new morality can only be "can be proved by means of logic". Which can be demonstrated to be true and necessary.

Her "morality is based on man’s life as a standard of value. And she goes so far as to say "That his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness."

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are listed as some of those endowed natural rights past down from generation to generation originating from the beginning of our primordial creation and are not subject to parliaments or kings.

Scorn of churches

Some have said that, Rand is "out to destroy almost every edifice in the contemporary American way of life. Our Judeo-Christian religion, our modified, government-regulated capitalism, our rule by the majority will.”

She is accused of a "scorn churches, and the concept of God.”

The first accusation is certainly tru but not without some justification. Certainly she was "challenging the base of all these institutions."

But she also said, "I’m challenging the moral code of altruism. The precept that man’s moral duty is to live for others. That man must sacrifice himself to others. Which is the present day morality."

To understand Rand we should, if we love the reality of objective truth, try to understand what she may not understand and why.

Moral code

What is the "moral code of altruism?"

The definition of altruism includes the choice of charity which in the Judeo-Christian's Bible we find one Greek word translated into both "love" and "charity". And the only "code" on the subject seems to suggest that we Should "love our neighbors as ourselves".

This would include loving those endowed natural rights of our neighbor as much as our own.

Is it possible that the institutions Ayn scorned had distorted the Judeo-Christian's ethics or value?

If they had we should ask does that distortion remain with us today?

Democracy and communism

Mike Wallace states in an interview of Ayn Rand that "Democracy or Communism, take hold and affect the entire world".

What was the stand of Church institution on "Democracy or Communism"?

The "rule by the majority will" result from Democracy which the founder opposed and believed would fail. The preferred the virtues of a Republic where both rulers and the mob are restrained.

Karl Marx advocated democracy as the road to communism. And once the masses an vote themselves benefits and dainties a "modified, government-regulated capitalism" will soon not be capitalism but socialism and communism.

When Mike Wallace asked Rand, "Yes, but you say everybody is enslaved to everybody, yet this came about democratically, Ayn. A free people in a free country voted for this kind of government, wanted this kind of legislation. Do you object to the democratic process?"

Her response was far more accurate than his question:

"I object to the idea that the people have the right to vote on everything. The traditional American system was a system based on the idea that majority will prevailed only in public or political affairs. And that it was limited by inalienable individual rights, therefore I do not believe that a majority can vote a man’s life, or property, or freedom away from him. Therefore, I do not believe that if a majority votes on any issue, that this makes the issue right; it doesn’t."

In a Republic the mob or majority has no right to take away the rights of the minority or of each other. Rand was right but Wallace was wrong. It was not the "democratic process" that enslaved to everybody but the covetous practices of the people and the churches should have been the first to point that out.

It was the the appetite of the Masses for "benefits and the habit of receiving them by way of a rule of force and violence." That violence and force came at the hands of government by the consent of "people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others... institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch."

And like the One purse of Proverbs once the people consent the will run toward death and be caught in a snare and a trap.

The "contemporary American way of life" is decidedly different than the life in early America. It is not The Way of Christ and the Churches should have sounded the alarm but were silent.

Last I looked the the covetous practices of eating ate the tables of legal charity through the welfare State is a sin and not in conformity with the Judeo-Christian religious values found in the Bible.

When Mike Wallace responded, "All right, then how do we arrive at action? How should we arrive at action?"

Rand answered, "By voluntary consent, voluntary cooperation of free men, unforced. Miss Rand herself was essentially opposed the forcing of contribution of the people to provide welfare." This was no different than Abraham and Moses and certainly John the Baptist and Jesus who was the Christ. Even David, and Paul warned that any other welfare benefits at tables of rulers was a snare and a trap with Peter warning that they would make the people "Human resources" and curse their children.

Mike Wallace, Rand and the people were all living in darkness at that time and the Church must bear some of that responsibility. Rand was closer than many of the ministers and followers the Apostate Church of the that day.

Taxes

Rand pointed out, "The whole people elects. There is nothing wrong with the democratic process in politics. We arrive at it the way we arrived by the American Constitution as it used to be. By the constitutional powers, as we had it, people elect officials, but the powers of those officials, the powers of government are strictly limited. They will have no right to initiate force or compulsion against any citizen, except a criminal. Those who have initiated force will be punished by force, and that is the only proper function of government. What we would not permit is the government to initiate force against people who have hurt no one, who have not forced anyone. We would not give the government, or the majority, or any minority, the right to take the life or the property of others. That was the original American system."

Mike Wallace stated, "When you say, “take the property of others,” I imagine that you are talking now about taxes." And Rand replied, "Yes I am."

Mike Wallace thinks he is now taking the moral high ground by stating:

"And you believe there should be no right by the government to tax. You believe that there should be no such thing as welfare legislation, unemployment compensation, regulation during times of stress, certain kinds of rent controls, and things like that."

But she confidently responds: :That’s right. I’m opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy. Let me put it briefly. I’m for the separation of state and economics. Just as we had separation of state and church, which led to peaceful co-existence among different religions, after a period of religious wars, so the same applies to economics. If you separate the government from economics, if you do not regulate production and trade, you will have peaceful cooperation, and harmony, and justice among men."

Mike departs from reason into a world of emotion and greed eliciting an emotional response:

"You are certainly enough of a political scientist to know that certain movements spring up in reaction to other movements. The labor movement for instance, certain social welfare legislation. This did not spring full blown from somebody’s head. I mean, out of a vacuum. This was a reaction to certain abuses that were going on, isn’t that true, Ayn?"

She responded without denying the existence of abuse:

"Not always. It actually sprang up from the same source as the abuses. If by abuses you mean the legislation which, originally, had been established to help industrialists, which was already a breach of complete free enterprise. If then, in reaction, labor leaders get together to initiate legislation to help labor, that is only acting on the same principle. Namely, all parties agreeing that it is proper for the state to legislate in favor of one economic group or another. What I’m saying is that nobody should have the right, neither employers nor employees, to use state compulsion and force for their own interests."

In 1 Samuel 8 the people saw abuse and corruption and though by giving power to government to fix the problem was a solution but Mike does not see the problem with giving more power to government and if he does go to Church or Synagogue he is not sufficiently warned of the outcome which we are not the witness of the taking and taking that always results.

Mike strings out a litany of triggering words and phrases:

"When you advocate completely unregulated economic life in which every man works for his own profit, you are asking in a sense for a devil-take-the-hindmost, dog-eat-dog society, and one of the main reasons for the growth of government controls was to fight the robber barons, to fight laissez-faire, in which the very people whom you admire the most, Ayn, the hard-headed industrialists, the successful men, perverted the use of their power. Is that not true?

But Rand coolly responds:

"No, it isn’t. This country was made not by robber barons, but by independent men, by industrialists, who succeeded on sheer ability. By ability, I mean without political force, help, or compulsion. But at the same time there were men, industrialists, who did use government power as a club to help them against competitors. They were the original collectivists. Today, the liberals believe that the same compulsion should be used against the industrialists for the sake of workers, but the basic principle there is, “Should there be any compulsion?” And the regulations are creating robber barons, they are creating capitalists with government help, which is the worst of all economic phenomenon."

Mike Wallace rather than arguing the point goes into a dental mode trying to lull her into an agreement:

"Ayn, I think that you will agree with me when I say that you do not have a good deal of respect for the society in which you and I currently live. You think that we’re going downhill fairly fast. Now I would like you to think about this question, and you’ll have a minute intermission to ponder it and then come back and answer it, 'o you predict dictatorship and economic disaster for the United States if we continue on our present course? Do you?'" (But then delays her response with...) "And we’ll get Ayn Rand’s answer in just a moment.

On returning Mike Wallace asks:

"And now back to our story. All right, Ayn Rand, what I’d like to know is this, since you describe it as happening in your novel Atlas Shrugged, do you actually predict dictatorship and economic disaster for the United States?"

Bluntly she responds:

"If the present collectivist trend continues, if the present anti-reason philosophy continues, yes, that is the way the country is going. But, I do not believe in historical determinism, and I do not believe that people have to go that way. Men have the free will to choose and to think. If they change their thinking we do not have to go into dictatorship."

Mike Wallace does not deny that dictatorship is inevitable but goes back to the lie of democracy:

:\"Yes, but how can you expect to reverse this trend, when, as we’ve said, the country is run by majority rule, through ballot, and that majority seems to prefer to vote for this modified welfare state?

The phrase "this modified welfare state" would eventually evolve int "democratic socialism" but the outcome would be the same.

Rand's response is in error but understandably since having come from Russia and only having heard the Judeo-Christian values preached in the modern Church:

"Oh, I don’t believe that. You know as well as I do that the majority today has no choice. The majority has never been offered a choice between controls and freedom."

There is the choice to repent and seek the kingdom of Gid and His righteousness which would not include the covetous practices of the welfare state and all forms of legal charity.

The multitude who error

Mike Wallace foolishly asks:

"How do you account for the fact that an almost overwhelming majority of the people, who are regarded as our leading intellectuals, and our leading industrialists, the men whom you seem to admire the most, the men with the muscle and the money, favor the modified capitalism that we have today?"

Ayn Rand:

"Ah…because it is an intellectual issue. Since they all believe in collectivism, they do favor it, but the majority of the people has never been given a choice. You know that both parties today are for socialism, in effect, for controls, and there is no party, there are no voices, to offer an actual, pro-capitalist, laissez-faire, economic freedom, and individualism. That is what this country needs today."

What the country needs

Mike Wallace:

"Isn’t it possible that they all, we all, believe in it because we are all basically lonely people, and we all understand that we are basically our brother’s keepers?"

Ayn Rand:

"You couldn’t say that you really understand it, because there is no way in which you could justify it. Nobody has ever given a reason why men should be their brother’s keepers, and you’ve had every example, and you see the examples around you, of men perishing by the attempt to be their brother’s keepers."

Mike Wallace:

"You have no faith in anything."

Ayn Rand:

"Faith….no."

Mike Wallace:

"Only in your mind."

Ayn Rand:

"That is not faith. That is a conviction. Yes….. I have no faith at all. I only hold convictions."

Here we see Ayn is confused about the meaning of words like conviction and faith and ideology. This is because the labels of the religious that divided the Gospel of Christ into ideologies calling them religion.

True faith is a conviction.

True or Pure Religion is that voluntarism without the exercising authority of the State.

And the true Gospel of the kingdom is actually not about "blind faith" but the Logic of Christ which is the Logos of Christ.

I can see a bitterness in Ayn Rand and a foolishness in Wallace but I must indict the ignorance and silence of the Modern Church.

Ayn Rand and Social Security

Someone tried to say that "...Ayn Rand signed up for Social Security and Medicare when it was clear the income from her novels could not support her in her old age. When pressed on it, she stated that she paid in, she should at least get that much out. When it was later pointed out that the payouts, particularly in medical bills, far exceeded everything she had ever paid in, she just shrugged it off."

They went on to say "She died after suffering from years of cancer - caused by her smoking, treatment paid for by the taxpayer's dime, damning a program that treated her illnesses while her followers used their 'rational self-interest' she advocated to decide not to help her pay." http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=954&start=400 say her

That simply was not true. She opposed the idea and never signed up for benefits and was not broke at the time of her death.

There was an interesting rebuttal to these evidently false accusations against Ayn Rand and the "by the anti-Ayn brigade".

Not the way it works

I noticed one comment in the article:

"... in 1966 Rand's Objectivist Newsletter said that not collecting from programs that one is forced to finance would be wrong. It said:

" ...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

I hear this all the time from people who want to collect SS payments now but the fact is there is no "refund of their own money".

That is not the nature of social security and there is no fund nor reserve fund to collect from. In fact, there is no money in any fund for Social Security. Any benefits taken will be extracted along with interest from your children and grandchildren.

Everything you apply for from Social Security curses your children with more debt.

I understand that at this point most people need help from or are completely dependent on Social Security and that dependance, and therefore bondage, was the plan.

But if anyone is ever going to be free in the world then people will need to start making the sacrifices that liberty requires. They will need to start doing what Christ said:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33

The unseen choice

In an interview with Mike Wallace Miss Rand stated "... if I am challenging the base of all these institutions, I’m challenging the moral code of altruism. The precept that man’s moral duty is to live for others. That man must sacrifice himself to others. Which is the present day morality."

According to Herod and Hagel we may believe that government may have a right to take away from the people but that right must be granted for it to be just. Maybe this is why God told us to make no covenants.

"He can always correct it. Man has free will. If a man wants love he should correct his weaknesses, or his flaws, and he may deserve it. But he cannot expect the unearned, neither in love, nor in money, neither in matter, nor spirit." Ayn Rand

"Man has the free will to choose and to think. If they change their thinking we do not have to go into dictatorship."

Changing your thinking is the meaning of "Repent!"

The choice is to seek the true kingdom of God and His righteousness which is a Pure Republic that proclaims "liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."(Leviticus 25:10)

Today the people are a scattered flock where the slothful are under tribute and her princes are like wolves.

Already succeeded and failed

Social Security, like the unrighteous mammon was inevitably going to fail but not before it would snare the people.

Social Security system has failed and is only propped up with debt as it was in Judea and in Rome. The whole economy will fail too. There will not be a smooth transition and while we hope that many will repent, the only thing we can really change is ourselves.

Join the Living Network if you want to join with others to do what worked for the early Christians did to survive and thrive.

Not so Secure Socialism
Same old promise, Same old lie!
http://www.hisholychurch.org/news/articles/notsecuress.php
Appeared first on NewsWithViews 8-1-10

Corban
http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/corban.php

The Nicolaitan who God hates? Because they covet their neighbor's goods http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/nicolaity.php

Baptism, the Ritual and the Jurisdiction Are Christians repenting and getting baptized or are they just all wet? http://www.hisholychurch.org/sermon/baptismjura.php

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Baptism, NN Video Series:4-10 5:23

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

One Purse, NN Video Series:5-10 3:48

If you need help:

Or want to help others:

Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network | Join Local group | About | Purpose | Guidelines | Network Removal
Contact Minister | Fractal Network | Audacity of Hope | Network Links

---

CORE | Free Assemblies | Congregations | Congregants | Elders | Fractal Network
Why Congregate | Why we gather | Why Minister | Church | Why Church | COM | MORE |
Congregations of Rebuke | Tips on forming a CORE | CORE Solution | CORE Off Track |
First to do List | Why did Jesus Say | Society and community | Feasts | Celebrate | Network |

Radio | Broadcasts | Keys_of_the_Kingdom The_Sabbath_Hour | Straight Talk‏‎ |
Amateur Radio Network | Conference Calls | Audio-Video |

Audio and Video Archives
2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 |
2012 | 2011 | 2010 | Misc |
AllAud | Broadcasts | Books |
Bible | Videos | YouTube
Keys of the Kingdom Audio Archive