The Ayn Rand Institute Accepts Federal Aid - PPP

Planned Parenthood received $615 million dollars in taxpayers dollars while selling dead baby parts. Churches didn't have to pay which is vastly different from receiving $615 million dollars in taxpayers dollars.

 

Do you understand the difference between a million and a billion?

 

Look at it this way: if humanity could resurrect the dead Ayn Rand's acolytes would be pleading with scientists to bring her back to life. But the fact is that Ayn Rand as she herself asserted "never needed anybody's help or asked for it or expected it." Why should she be resurrected?

 

I think it was about it is the government shutting them down not the free market.

 

Do you understand the difference between the Government not collecting taxes and handing them out to kill babies?

 

No clue what you're trying to say.

 

No it is confusion. You can't compare tax law to welfare. Because you like welfare and dislike the catholic church doesn't tie them together politically.

 

Zygotes are not babies. You realize abortion referrals make up a relatively small portion of Planned Parenthood's business

If you cared about “babies” you should be outraged that an institution that molests children received billions in taxpayer aid but instead you are upset about health clinics.

Priorities...

 

Tax law? The PPP isn’t tax law, it was supposed to be a stimulus package / job insurance.
Welfare is also a stimulus package to some extent and a quality of life program.

Do I disagree with religious organization that protects pedophiles, rotates them to other areas of the country so they can continue to abuse while fighting and lobbying against protections for the victims — that also pay zero in taxes — receiving the largest percentage of funds meant to help small businesses? Absolutely, the question is why don’t you?

That you conflate helping families feed themselves and their children with the above explains why you don’t. Disgusting

 

Tax free status for churches is tax law. PPP had nothing to do with the topic.

You make a lot of bad assumptions. I'm no fan of religion and I don't particularly like the tax free status for churches. PPP was a stupid plan that was incompetently administered. Don't defend it to me.

That you guess what I think about a number topics simply because I corrected one of your posts is puerile.

 

First Churches don't get "aid", they receive NO tax dollars from the Government.

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” ― Ronald Reagan

 

I never mentioned the source of the shut down in my post.

The Institute set up shop in the US with the full knowledge that they then have to abide by the conditions of the market in the US, up to and including a potential Govt led shutdown for any reason.

If they truely devoted to the ideology they aspire too, they would have insulated themselves to all contingencies so as to avoid needing a handout.

Better yet, with the understanding that it's not easy to adequately prepare for every single contingency (though Govt shutdown for any reason should always be somewhere in the chain), why take the Govt bailout? Why not turn to the private sector for a loan or even to private charities, as I've heard recommended as an alternative to welfare?

Look, in the end, they are human beings who need to get by, and I don't necessarily preclude them for taking support.

I just hope that the experience will teach them that if they are going to live and work under a certain system, and thereby enjoy the benefits of it, then maybe don't devote your life to an ideology that spurns and reviles the very notion of that selfsame system and do everything you can to undermine and discredit that system.

Maybe take the time to try and improve it instead. Things worked a lot better when everyone agreed on the outcome, but not always the right path forward

 

That was quite BLARING. This not about a failure of conservative or liberal economics it is about a pandemic and government shutting down the economy. That this institute or any other organization which qualifies receives

And do you believe conservatives who oppose the Social Security system as it exist and live here with the full knowledge they had to abide by the conditions If they truely devoted to the ideology they aspire too, they would have insulated themselves from needed those funds in retirement and not take them?

So any business whose owners opposed higher taxes and government subsidies of other businesses should not take these funds on some moral grounds?

Actually don't the persons who pay the taxes that fund and will have to for a long time these funds have a higher moral right to them?

I don't think you understand the principles of Ayn Rand or the society but here the head of the society can explain it to you.

How about allowing them or other groups of people opt out and self-fund themselves then. If you are going to say it is immoral or something that they yes give me some of my money back if you are going to hand it out, we have the same need that government, not our own mismanagement, has caused, so yes I'll take some of my money back.

 

Yes it is. Which is something that can happen in an economy with a Govt.

I'm sure they would like too, but the system as it is is the conditions of living there. It can be altered by the Govt, so it's not necessarily set in stone.

No, that would be foolhardy and probably make running the business difficult. I'm speaking about the ideological conflict of doing so when part of the ideology is the negative view on Govt bailouts.

A moral right? No. The moral component of the setup is the acknowledgement that the some pay for the many so that things are better overall in the long term.

If you think the moral position of this is that those who put in more, get more, then you and I have a very different view on morality.

Thanks. Watched it all. I appreciate his eloquence in explaining his views. That said, nothing in there conflicts with what I knew before and based my point on.

Sure, all you have to do is either move before you start contributing altogether, or successfully advocate for a legal change to the system to reallocate the money you've contributed.

It still wouldnt change the fact that you accepted a handout from the Govt while simultaneously attacking handouts from govt. However you wanna internally reconcile that contradiction is entirely in your hands (and that guy in the video has done a good medal routine to figure out how to do so).

 

When has it happened before and so what what does that have to do with this?

You are talking voluntary acts. So if a person opposed the SS system should they voluntarily refuse to accept their SS checks even thought they were forced to pay into it?

OK so everyone protesting the police should never again call the police for help.

Yes as he explained who has a higher standing to receive such assurance due to the government itself?

How about those who oppose tax rate cuts isn't it a contradiction, using your logic here. if they then pay at the lower rate?

 

These hypocrites from the Ayn Rand and the whole Right Wing business can only "morally justified" is if they don't use bankruptcy and corporate shields as their for to enhance their wealth by avoiding their responsibility for their obligations.

These wealth generation schemes are utterly antithetical to anything the supposedly principled activity these Right Wing scammers use day in and day out to avoid their obligations.

Want to be "John Galts"? Pay your debts, all of them, and never go bankrupt, don't use the corporate shields individually or as a corporate entity, including ALL of the stockholders, and not just the stock value, but include ALL assets and wealth for ALL stockholders.

Then we can believe in their stories of true "personal responsibility", not a just game for the well to do to game the system.

 

It hasn't, but that doesn't matter. It is and was always a potential.

And I'm not sure, you brought it up. Not me.

No, having money removed from your taxes and put into SS is not a voluntary act. It's a legislated one.
And no. Refusing it would be stupid, just as I said the Institute would be dumb for not taking it. The issue was the mental gymnastics the institute (and to be fair: the opponent's of SS taking the funds) does to justify taking it without acknowledgment of the violation of their purported ideology in doing so.

Apples to oranges. One can criticize the corruption and abuse of a system and want reforms (especially of such a public system), while still accepting the overall need for a system. The ones who outright reject it definitely have to do some mental gymnastics to call 911 when in need, in the same manner as the institute.

He explained why he b(and the institute) (and the payers) have higher standing. Doesn't mean I agree with him.

Yes. But it's also law. And the way the system functions, it's either all or nothing.

So, you've run through a whole bunch of metaphors in an attempt to play 'gotcha' without ever actually acknowledging the issue at hand (though by your metaphors, I believe you understand it thoroughly).

 

There's a "potential" for everything, specious

Having your income and profits taxed is not a voluntary act but a legislative one. Your point just failed and you proved theirs.

Sorry but no, if you are calling for the police to not do their jobs then don't call them to do one for you which is what you are saying here.

They make a better case than you.

They don't have to pay the lower rate if they are against it, they can pay at the higher so if the oppose the lower rates why shouldn't they based on the logic you are attempting to use here? And your entire argument began on a metaphor.

 

yes. So a good, independent business who sees Govt as the problem and advocates for its disconnection from the market, should be prepared for a Govt imposed shutdown. I mean, they would theoretically be the ones most likely to assume the potential for onerous Govt imposed restrictions, up to and including a shutdown.

My point was that a Business who advocates against the Govt and bailouts who then simultaneously accepts one shouldn't throw as many stones if they decide the glass house house doesn't look so bad afterall.

Part of that point is the acceptance of having to live under legislation or move to a less onerous jurisdiction. I acknowledged that they are free to try the other route of altering the legislation. This doesn't prove their point any more then it denies mine.

No it's not. I'm saying if your willing to call the police when you need them, maybe take that into account if your going to protest the police and accept that they are essential to living in society.

I'm sure the choir says the same about the preacher too.

No it didn't, it began on the very real actions of the institute.

Also, there is a difference between accepting the need of the system and arguing the fine details of it, and outright rejecting the system and still benefiting from it.

But to be fair, I'd say that the last argument is probably the closest one to me agreeing of them all.

 

Why should they be prepared for that? OK don't tax them and then they can use that money to be prepared. Fair deal? If not then they have every right to apply for that money.

No one has thrown stones except you and those who advocate against tax rate cuts should continue paying at the higher rate then.

But if you do protest against them then don't call them.

And those with an open mind about it not trying to play some specious gotcha.

Nope as I said it cuts both ways. What the Rand society supports is government NOT taxing people to pay for bailouts of business which fail because of their own decisions. Let them use that money to purchase or fund their own protect. But until that time and as long as they are taxed to pay for such funding they have every right to equally apply for and get a share of THEIR money back.

 

Because if they want people to believe their rhetoric, it probably help and if they believe it as well and prepare accordingly.

And I never said they didn't. You seem to keep thinking I said that even though I said in my posts that it would be stupid not too.

So their institute does nothing, says nothing, and exists for no reason?

Their ideology is the stones they cast.

Or do call them, so you can be alive to admit that maybe you were wrong.

Ideology is all well and good until reality hits and suddenly it isn't as black and white as individuals and certain institutions think it is.

Lol your literally sitting in the choir house. And I do have an open mind. I've changed my opinions to a more right ward view thanks to this board (and even chats with you) on a few issues. Can you say the same? I've not seen it if so.

They do have every right, as I've said repeatedly. I simply look forward to their admission that they finally found a bailout they are ok with. Just so happens to be their own.

 

Their rhetoric is fully intact and restated in the clip. But then if we are to believe people who say tax rates should be higher then let them pay at a higher rate.

Yes don't take the money from them so you can give it back.

Again don't tax them then. I agree with them that it is not morally or ethical to tax them and then say that money can then only be used to assist liberal groups and causes. How do you justify that?

I have oppose Social Security since the 70's, would have preferred to have had that money to invest in a personal retirement account. Are you saying that I should refuse to take my Social Security check now?

I think you had a mind that you had a gotcha moment yet would not apply that to others. They didn't say they were OK with it, it is because what the government requires of them.

 

Are people not allowed to submit more taxes if they like?

Also, if I recall, the intention on the part of those who want to see higher taxes, advocate so because they believe the current system is deficient of the necessary funds to adequately fulfill the needs of the Govts programs. Not because of a moral conflict with the idea of low taxes.

The institute has a moral conflict regarding the entire philosophy of taxation and believe it's theft. Which is BS because it isn't.

Then don't live in a society that's chosen a Govt model that requires taxes. Or advocate a political change to remove that from the laws.

Well I reject the premise that the money is only allowed to be used for liberal programs and causes right off the bat.

No matter how many metaphorical equivalencies you trot out, I'm going to continue to say that not taking the money out of a moral obligation would be stupid. But it would be consistent.

No, I was hoping that the selfawarewolves would finally see the flaw in their ideology and maybe realize that the Govt isnt all bad and actually plays a role in society.

And the Govt requires it because people are inherently selfish and a strictly volunteer taxation system would collapse wholesale.

 

Yes and according to you they should be paying at the rates they support and no the Rand society doesn't believe there should be no taxation but that taxation should not be a power of government to control the citizens. That IDEALLY taxation in an IDEAL society would be entirely voluntary as the citizens paid for government services they need but this was/is entirely a philosophical discusion.

"Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future.

What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.

The principle of voluntary government financing rests on the following premises: that the government is not the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income — that the nature of the proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the principle of voluntary government financing regards the government as the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens — as an agent who must be paid for his services, not as a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing."

“GOVERNMENT FINANCING IN A FREE SOCIETY”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 118

Would you disagree with that on a philosophical basis?