[freen]

In order to make a government “small enough to down in a bathtub” you need to convince the general public that it is corrupt and incompetent, which has been the GOP play all along.

If your core argument about why you should govern is that government is the problem, is it any surprise that you sabotage any attempt at good governance?

Effective government is an existential risk for the GOP.

[jimkleiber]

Hard to make a lot of money when the government provides good services for free.

[freen]

Hard to have effectively indentured servitude if there’s a social safety net.

Remember even Hayek advocated for universal, government funded healthcare! Ayn Rand was on social security!

[roenxi]

I doubt you could source a quote for the Hayek point, but more interestingly Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force.

As a hypothetical, if the government took everyone's houses away and lotteried them back out out I'd say that was a terrible policy. I'd still be happy enough to move in to somewhere if I won a house though, because although the policy is appalling I'd rather be an owner than a renter and there aren't paths to owning.

Ditto, Ayn would probably have preferred that she wasn't taxed in the first place, but if they're going to give some of the money back she'd be stupid not to take it and there is no moral problem for her while taxes >= welfare receipts.

[n4r9]

In "The Road to Serfdom":

> There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.

[roenxi]

That doesn't read like support for universal government funded healthcare. He's talking insurance in the more traditional meaning of the word where it involves unexpected catastrophes as opposed to the weird modernism in healthcare where it means paying for things that are likely to happen (or even volunteered for).

Eg, that quote doesn't involve government covering medical costs for someone in their old age.

He might even have been excluding things like catching the flu, seeing the doctor and needing a week off work since he's talking about things people could not make adequate provisions for on their own.

[freen]

Look, you doubted that the quote could be sourced.

Maybe check your epistemology: perhaps other folks know more and better?

[n4r9]

Yeah, there are going to be differing interpreations of "common hazards of life" and "adequate provision". But it certainly sounds like he's advocating state-funded healthcare for e.g. cancer, which is very different to what many modern libertarians believe.

[richrichardsson]

> Rand's taking social security doesn't sound like any sort of contradiction with her views or an extreme anti-welfare position. Just because a policy is a terrible idea doesn't mean people shouldn't take advantage of it while it is in force.

Assuming that integrity and hypocrisy don't play any part in judging a person.

[roenxi]

I don't recall the details of Ayn's moral arguments because they aren't of great interest to me, but there just isn't a fundamental inconsistency between campaigning against welfare and accepting welfare. There isn't any hypocrisy in pointing out that something creates horrible incentives, then doing what the incentives suggest. If anything it is a great show of consistency in belief.

The alternative position would be kinda crazy. It'd be pretty close to "The government has injured me and therefore I will make myself even worse off for no reason or gain to anyone!"

[llomax]

You have literally, repeatedly demonstrated you don’t understand what principles or integrity mean. Your “crazy” position is literally it. You are simply greedy: well if everyone else is doing it so should I. That is panic mode caused by a real trauma from scarcity. Or naivety. Or cringe apathy. Or mild sociopathy.

[emsign]

Ayn Rand was a hypocrite and thus an idiot.

[msgodel]

You know last time I was laid off, and this time too actually, I haven't figured out where these social safety nets are. I could have really used it last time too, that was a significant struggle.

I don't think it's actually intended to be helpful and probably needs to go away.

[b3ing]

Because they won't fund it properly, thats the plan, underfund things or reduce funding to make them break, then people will say to get rid of it entirely.

[msgodel]

When something pretty clearly isn't working I don't think the answer is more of it.

[freen]

Hmm… maybe go check every other reasonable wealthy western democracy and evaluate your statement.

The people in power WANT the social safety net to fail. That is why it fails!