Ayn Rand vs. the Mandate

American Thinker ^ | 18 Sep, 2021 | Susan Hanson

[MtnClimber]

Our medical system is now completely under the thumbs of the government, and the Ayn Rand Institute, named for an inveterate enemy of socialism, is explicitly supporting it.

The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has turned against Ayn Rand. Our medical system is now completely under the thumbs of the government, and ARI, named for an inveterate enemy of socialism, is explicitly supporting it.

Onkar Ghate, ARI’s Chief Philosophy Officer, wrote a paper called ‘A Pro-Freedom Approach to Infectious Disease’ which he claims is “based on Rand’s conception of liberty.” This paper is a mishmash. He admits that healthcare is heavily controlled by government on the one hand, and then says this fact imposes different responsibilities on the government such as spending more money on hospital capacity. Why is he talking about what the government should do in a government-controlled health care system? Why isn’t he talking about why those controls should be eliminated instead? Ghate states: “In sum, government should not have the power to lock us down in our homes even during a widespread, uncontained outbreak of an infectious disease… But there are valid steps our government should take to increase the capacity of our government-controlled healthcare system…” (Italics added.) He also states that during a pandemic, the controls that cripple doctors, hospitals, etc. should be “suspended.” Why not permanently removed? Why no support for the doctors who want controls removed, but have been silenced and vilified, and face the looming threat of losing their jobs and removal of their medical licenses for resisting government controls?

The government should never be involved in medical decisions between doctor and patient -- it is always a violation of individual rights. Before any medical procedure can take place, the patient must give informed consent. Is the Rand Institute fighting the threat

[MtnClimber]

Foundations always seem to attract leftists.

[alexander_busek]

Why is he talking about what the government should do in a government-controlled health care system? Why isn’t he talking about why those controls should be eliminated instead?

Yes, like pointing out what a shame it was that Himmler's ovens weren't equipped to recover and recycle the waste heat.

There is little sense in attempting to suggest improvements in a fundamentally flawed system.

Regards,

[jacknhoo]

Why do so many posts here repeat the first paragraph twice and sometimes three times?

It happens so often, I don’t see it as being accidental.

[TakebackGOP]

There’s an Ayn Rand institute? Look at the liberal Republicans the Reagan Library has been hosting, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Look at the liberal Republicans the Reagan Library has been hosting, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie.”

We lived next to the Reagan Library from 2002-2010. They hosted some good people. Then things changed after RR died. The day Teddy Kennedy had an event there (thanks, Nancy!) I was on the corner protesting, along with several others. TEDDY KENNEDY at the REAGAN Library. Shameful.

[TakebackGOP]

Why was Ted Kennedy there?

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

IN! before the usual FReeyore anti-objectivists.
#AynRandWasRight
#SkolnickKnew

[MayflowerMadam]

“Why was Ted Kennedy there?”

Holding an event — a speech. According to the properties connected to the photo it was taken 4/28/2007.

I just found pics of the sign I made, on one of those large accordian fold-out cutting boards:

“Teddy K
Murderer
Traitor”

And I had a www.FreeRepublic.com banner across the bottom.

According to the properties of the photo, it was taken 4/28/2007.

As Nancy’s car drove by the corner, she was not amused. LOL!

[Clutch Martin]

“Why was Ted Kennedy there?”

Booze, catered buffet, and lots of glad-handing, back slappin’, and butt squeezin’.

[Buttons12]

Don’t know about the others but Binswanger surely knows better. He was inner circle. If Rand were here she would nuke him for this betrayal of Objectivist principles.

[Raymann]

Screw those guys. Follow the Atlas Society. True inheriters to Rands legacy

[cgbg]

Ayn Rand has so many great ideas and quotes--one very relevant to today:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

[Publius]

Rand ping.

[MtnClimber]

There is little sense in attempting to suggest improvements in a fundamentally flawed system.

THAT!

[rlmorel]

"...In sum, government should not have the power to lock us down in our homes even during a widespread, uncontained outbreak of an infectious disease… But there are valid steps our government should take to increase the capacity of our government-controlled healthcare system…"

To unpack this quote, there are two parts to consider:

• The first part, about locking us down in our homes, is a problem of personal liberty. I have always been of the opinion that, if this virus warranted it by killing 30-50% of the people in infected, you would not have to mandate masking, quarantining, and vaccination.
  
  Not only would people be doing these things of their own free will after performing their own risk versus benefit analysis. Seeing corpses laid in front of houses for removal would compel most normal people to mask, quarantine, and submit to vaccination.
  
  And they wouldn't be doing it against their will.
  
  They would be wearing hazmat suits if they left their houses, barricading themselves in their houses with firearms if they were home, and clamoring vocally for vaccines because they would understand that without those things, up to half of the people who are infected will die.

• For the second part, about the tacit support by the author regarding government intervention into healthcare during a crisis-this is a completely different aspect and does bear directly on the role of government. Does anyone doubt that the government should step into a severe crisis to increase capacity and relax regulation and red tape in a real pandemic where 50% of infected people are dying?
  
  Of course not. We would expect it.
  
  If corpses were being piled in the street, OF COURSE we would expect the government, industry, and the citizenry to step in at all levels!

BUT THERE ARE TWO KEY POINTS HERE:

• KEY POINT 1: THIS VIRUS DOES NOT RISE TO THAT LEVEL THAT JUSTIFIES THAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
  
  
• KEY POINT 2: WHO OR WHAT DECIDES WHAT THAT THRESHOLD SHOULD BE?

[Billthedrill]

While it is true that government takes on responsibility concomitant with the restrictions on liberty it is permitted by law to enact, that does not reduce to a government with unlimited ability to restrict liberty in return for complete care of the citizen. That isn't the deal. Here's the deal:

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

That's the deal. Governments are established to secure liberty for their citizens, not to suppress it in view of some Greater Good. That was always the Great Lie behind collectivist government and is the driving philosophical tenet of authoritarian socialism (in practice, there is no other kind).

In my view the case is simple: the government is allowed great but not unlimited power to curtail certain liberties in times of national emergency, and it has already grossly overstepped even those generous limits. I do not think Rand would disagree with a word of that. It devolves to yet another primal struggle between authority and liberty - perhaps we're overdue, and it does look like Jefferson was correct about that tree.

[higgmeister]

Why do so many posts here repeat the first paragraph twice and sometimes three times?

It happens so often, I don’t see it as being accidental.

Here is the reason.   A blog type website generally cut-n-pastes information from other sites.   The linked to site has text in another format and that gets repeated as the same text in their own blog article.   There is often a photo or graphic that repeats the text as a caption.

If the complete content gets posted here with one cut-n-paste from the blog site that text is copied three times for us to stumble through.   The Freeper should proofread and delete the duplicate text but that is usually an after thought.   It's not intentional but just part of the internet architecture.

[jacknhoo]

Makes sense, thanks.

[zeugma]

# Foundations always seem to attract leftists.

Yes. All foundations eventually morph into leftists tools. I can’t think of a single contra-example.