Atlas Shrugged and the Torah

why can’t we just discuss it over there

Popa,

There are points made in her book that are valid, and there are aspects of her philosophy that are good. In fact I think people should go through life expecting to be treated as they would in Ayn Rand’s world. The bad part is in the treating others that way. So while it is good not to expect charity and help from others, it is evil to refuse to give charity and help to others. Ayn Rand believes “sheli, sheli, v’shelach, shelach,” and believes it so strongly that to deviate from that norm, even against’s one’s own selfish interest, is criminal.

I am sure that the people of S’dom had a rational basis for treating charity as a crime, just as Rand advocated (yes, it is in the book, maybe it stands out more if you read it rather than listening). The philosophy of Rand (as expressed in Galt’s speech) is contrary to every positive aspect of mitzvos bein adam l’chaveiro.

“She doesn’t mention it in her interviews”

So she was smart enough to selectively discuss her philosophy, and only mention the good parts. Shkoyach.

It’s all one ideological package. From historical documentation, such as writings and interviews of those in her inner circle, we learn that she was fanatically insistent that everyone accept every aspect of her philosophy, even her odd aesthetic views (which some see as eerily similar to Soviet Realism.)

Even if one of the main ideas of an author seems OK, this does not mean that the author should be read. She is clearly trying to indoctrinate people into a very specific rationalist, secularist worldview. I would no more want my kids reading this, than reading Xian apologetics, Chairman Mao or L. Ron Hubbard.

Although I don’t agree with them, it’s understandable that many people believe that private charity should take care of all poor people, with government doing very little or nothing in the chesed department.

However, Rand’s extreme libertarian or anarcho-capitalist views are also incompatible with the Torah’s economic laws, such as the requirement to pay a worker on the same day as he finishes his work. Any legislation of that nature would be absolutely forbidden under Rand’s worldview, as presented in the interview you quoted. Similarly, Poskim have approved of tax collecting, which is also against Rand’s beliefs.

“But I think the rest of her point, which is really her main point, is her point 4. And I think that stands by itself and survives without that.”

I agree that one can agree with point 4 without buying in to everything else she believed, and I think that many of the people who look up to her and Atlas Shrugged choose (rightly) to ignore the bad parts of her philosophy.

If one limits Rand’s philosophy to a philosophy of government rather than one of human behavior or virtue, then I agree that it is not necessarily evil. But her full philosophy is against Torah, is midas s’dom and is evil.

lol midas mulligan is my hero. at any rate, it’s pretty antithetical to our beliefs about caring for others, though modern yeshivish conservatards are sure to disagree for whatever reason. randroids are fun to talk to doe, always fun to get them going about the gold standard.

I basically agreed with those rants. Although I can understand if you don’t like to mix your rants with your novels.

Actually, to me it wasn’t a matter of disagreeing or even objecting on grounds of taste. I just felt that the point she was trying to make (which I essentially agree with, as I said to haifagirl above) was lost in her mode of expression.

“William Jennings Bryan.”

William Jennings Bryan was a fundamentalist Christian who used Christian imagery in his political campaigns on a regular basis. He got a bad rap from his sorry defense of the Young Universe in the Scopes trial, as he actually cared a lot about the well being of those less well off — and his religion was the basis for that caring. He could not have been more opposite to Ayn Rand.

“Had no idea what a gold or silver standard was or why it mattered, and still don’t really.”

Basically, the idea is that the government only issues currency to the extent that it holds these precious metals. Until the 1960s, you could actually take a Silver Certificate to the Treasury and redeem it for silver; until the 1930s you could take a Gold Certificate and redeem it for gold.

But it didn’t work very well. It limited the amount in currency in circulation and that led to serious deflation which destroyed the lives of anyone in debt. During the time when the US was on a pure metal standard with no central bank (basically, 1836 to 1914, with the exception of the American Civil War) there were repeated financial panics that a lack of liquid cash in the economy made much worse. It was not until the Panic of 1907 that the robber barons realized that their own prosperity was entirely dependent on the welfare of the country as a whole, that they accepted the idea that the money supply had to grow if the country was to grow. The result was the Aldrich-Vreeland Act, which allowed the government again to print large amounts of paper currency. That proved essential at the beginning of World War I, as the warring powers withdrew all their hard (backed by metals) money from the US economy. Treasury secretary William McAdoo had to close the stock market for four months to prevent disaster, and the paper money allowed by the Aldrich-Vreeland Act saved the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Reserve System was put into place (it had already been enacted into law but wasn’t yet operating at the time of the crisis) and since then most US currency is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States rather than metal in vaults.

The United Kingdom tried to go back onto the gold standard in the late 1920s; Winston Churchill, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in charge of this effort, later said it was the worst mistake of his life.

For the US to go back on the gold (or silver) standard today would be unthinkable except in the minds of those right wing nutcases who live in an alternate reality. These commodity markets are subject to wild fluctuations and at times actual manipulations by speculators. Why, just in the past two work days, the price of gold has dropped 13%! The total gold reserves of the United States are now valued at approximately $365 billion. However, there is currently approximately $1.18 trillion in US dollars in circulation. To reduce the amount of money supply by almost 70% would completely destroy the economy of not just the United States but that of the entire free world.

There is a fascinating interview Ayn Rand made with Mike Wallace back in the late 1950s; a search can easily find it on YouTube, usually in three segments. While the video is poor quality, the audio is very clear and you can hear what she really thinks. It chills me to think that even some Jews with yeshiva educations can imagine her as a philosophical model to follow.

ya well, its not for cliffnotes folk and the like bro.

“William Jennings Bryan was a fundamentalist Christian who used Christian imagery in his political campaigns on a regular basis. He got a bad rap from his sorry defense of the Young Universe in the Scopes trial”

Bryan didn’t actually defend the “Young Universe” he maintained that beginning of Genesis was not literal 24 hour days. Here is the exchange: (The “Q” is Darrow and the “A” is Bryan).

Q–Would you say that the earth was only 4,000 years old?

A–Oh, no; I think it is much older than that.

Q–How much?

A–I couldn’t say.

Q–Do you say whether the Bible itself says it is older than that?

A–I don’t think it is older or not.

Q–Do you think the earth was made in six days?

A–Not six days of twenty-four hours.

Q–Doesn’t it say so?

A–No, sir….

Frankly, as cross-examinations transcripts go, I think Bryan one the battle.

Unfortunately Inherit the Wind, a novelization of the event, has been taken as fact and given people a false impression.

“If the chachomim decide I must give you charity–I trust that they are doing what Hashem wants and that I must give it because that is what Hashem wants.

If you vote that I should give you charity–that is just stealing.”

Wrong. Taxes are mutar. See Bava Kamma 113.

“Unfortunately Inherit the Wind, a novelization of the event, has been taken as fact and given people a false impression.”

The trial was broadcast live on the radio and Darrow was very convincing. But even more important was probably H.L. Mencken’s daily accounts, which put a very negative spin on Bryan. Mencken made it look like Bryan was losing faith by conceding a point about the 24 hour days. Bryan died only five days after the end of the trial; Mencken lived another three decades.

The robber barons feared Bryan more than any other politician of his generation; he represented the poor and underrepresented (at least those who were white) and correctly saw that laissez-faire was destroying their lives. It is ironic is that most of the spiritual descendants of Bryan have now allied politically with the spiritual descendants of those same robber barons. Bryan is certainly turning over in his grave.

“Somehow I feel like you’re not responding to me.”

I responded. You just don’t like the response. Taxes are mutar — I even gave you the Talmudic source — and in a democracy the recipients of tax revenues can vote themselves benefits.

That is in fact how the charedim in Eretz Yisrael get so many benefits — the charedi political parties would support whatever government provided those benefits, paid for by the rest of Israel’s citizens, regardless of whether the government was of the Left or of the Right. They certainly are not promoting the idea that laissez-faire is the Torah way!

I thought everybody got past their randroid phase by the end of high school. guess not. pupa, dont worry, in a month or so you’ll go back to being a normal human and realize that all the galt gulch dudes are a bunch of soulless freaks.

The idea that anytime the government gives anyone money (and the people who received the money voted) this constitutes coercive theft is highly problematic.

Certainly, if the majority of the country voted to elect a party to power who then followed through on their campaign promise to seize the estates of the few thousand richest people in the country, and then redistribute their assets to everyone else, that would be stealing. In fact, I believe some of the features of the US’s originaly political system, such as the Senate (which was appointed by other officeholders until the early 20th century) and allowing only those with property to vote, were designed to prevent such things from happening.

But the way the modern state works is a far cry from that. There are various kinds of taxes, and everyone pays taxes. The poor pay lots of taxes (through sales taxes, for example). Many poor people on food stamps or other benefits actually probably pay more in sales taxes each year than they receive in benefits. So in that case, who are they stealing from?

Even if some people are receiving more than their tax contribution at a particular time, if you look at their lives over the long-term, it is likely that they will end up having other years in which they pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Most people using government benefits do not remain on them for life. The average food stamp recipient is on food stamps for less than a year.

Even if some people receive more benefits overall in their lifetime than they pay in taxes, this is not really stealing. Such people are not in the majority, for one thing. Moreover, it’s not as if they’re appropriating the assets of other people. They’re simply getting a bit of income to allow them to survive. And the well-off are getting the benefit of not having to have starving mobs begging in the streets and rioting and such.

Although some wealthy people may object to paying taxes that will help poor people, most people (even though who currently have plenty of money) recognize that it’s completely possible that they themselves, or their descendants, will at some point be destitute and require assistance. (See John Rawls’ concept of the veil of ignorance.) Most people would rather live in a society that helps destitute people, because no one knows what will happen to them personally. Perhaps it would be ideal if private charity could do this by itself, but that’s really a fantasy, at least for now.

The way the government works, money is distributed all over the place for various purposes. Government contractors make billions, and thousands of people get steady jobs, because the government decides to make (often unnecessary) weapons (to use ourselves and to give away to countries like Israel and Egypt.) Thus they take a little bit from everybody and in this case the benefit is specific to a particular group of people (contractors and their employees). Even so, it’s not stealing — it’s just the government raising revenue by various means and deciding how to spend it.

Avi, that’s an interesting argument. But all the religious parties in Israel (whether Ashkenazi or Sephardi, Charedi or Dati Leumi) support government support for the poor. And they would all like to actually increase it (and also nowadays, in reaction to the social justice protests, to further regulate the economy in some ways to benefit the middle class).

I am not familiar with all the sources on this issue, but it seems likely that there are other sources one could draw upon to justify our current system. Chabad.org recently put out some materials quoting various sources on different sides of a few political issues (such as taxation, health insurance, etc.)

Thanks for addressing my points, Popa.

1. There is usually no sales tax on food. They’re paying sales taxes when they do their non-food spending, which is most of their spending — gas, clothes, diapers, household items, etc. EITC increases their income, but it is only a small proportion of their overall income.

2. The rhetoric may go against the 1%, but in fact the top 1% pay the least taxes. Some of the richest people in the country pay hardly any taxes at all. The top 80%-98% or so of earners, though, at least those who earn salaries, do pay a proportionally larger share. But they are also benefiting in all kinds of ways from government spending — subsidies of the universities they went to (or are employed by), subsidized student loans, mortgage tax deductions, government contracts and payments, government support for medical research, high-paying government jobs, highway infrastructure so they can commute from suburbs, needlessly complex tax and other regulations that provide livelihood for many wealthy lawyers, etc.

4. It’s not stealing because it’s from general tax revenues, which everybody pays to some extent. Governments have been raising money through taxes and spending on various things (including sometimes poor relief) for hundreds, probably thousands, of years. It’s inherent to what government does.

5. Both parties have agreed on the need for at least a minimal safety net for nearly 100 years. You can’t say this is all because the dole-drunk masses have voted in the populists. It’s normal for majorities of non-dependent people to want some safety net. Nobody wants to see huge shantytowns everywhere (as they have in Latin America.)

6. Individuals don’t get to decide — that’s decided by the majoritarian political process, as limited by constitutional and legislative constraints on what the government can do. We don’t really have an alternative. There’s no reason to think we can have a functional government without taxation, or to think that a non-democratic system would better protect individual rights to property. It would be interesting if charity and welfare were purely non-state and voluntary, but that’s a pipe dream at this point.

7. Our tax system does not redistribute wealth. Wealth is assets. Instead, we give some poor people in-kind benefits (such as food and medical care) and modest amounts of cash income (such as time-limited TANFF benefits), which they immediately spend on necessities (or in the case of EITC tax “refund,” spend over the next few months on necessities). If they were amassing large bank accounts and buying houses with their government payments, maybe you could call that redistributing wealth, but that’s not happening.

“Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” Oliver Wendel Holmes.