Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts:Blue States Are The Providers, Red States Are The Parasites

Alternet

Last week, the New York Times published a widely discussed article updating an argument that progressive bloggers noticed a very long time ago. It's now well-understood that blue states generally export money to the federal government; and red states generally import it.

Progressives believe in the redistribution of wealth, so we're not usually too upset by this state of affairs. That’s what it means to be one country. E pluribus unum, and all that. We’re happy to help, because we think we’ve got a stake in making sure kids in rural Alabama get educations and seniors in Arizona get healthcare. What’s good for them is good for all of us. We also like to think they’d help us out if our positions were reversed. It’s an investment in making America stronger, and we feel fine about that.

But maybe it's time to admit that we're being played for chumps, and that there are people in the rest of the country who are taking way too much advantage of our good nature. After all: it's now a stone fact that the blue states and cities are the country's real wealth creators. That's why we pay more taxes, and are able to send that money to the red states in the first place.

I've long noticed that often the people who are just barely hanging on in the middle class or who have benefited from government and other aid programs in the past are the most likely to blast the poor. I think it's maybe a way to make themselves feel like they have arrived at a certain level of achievement and it's their turn to give others the treatment they would or have received in the past. A kind of a dog-in-the-manger attitude, but it exists.

I'm no great fan of the rich, either, but sometimes I've seen more compassion in some of them than you see in the almost-poor.

This is is partly, I think, an explanation of why the lower and middle middle classes vote against their own class interests much of the time. The red states that most benefit from government assistance are the ones that generally go for the most conservative, poor-hating candidates. I think they get focused on the moral and religious issues and ignore the fact that these candidates are most likely to work against their supporter's economic best interests.

So what does this have to do with Ayn Rand? Are you implying Rand is a "red stater" or that her followers only live in red states because thats not true.

reply to post by Lord Jules


Ayn Rand asserts that conservatives are the wealth creators and the liberals--those who are poor or care about the poor-- are all parasites on them. This turns out not to be the case. The more generous among us do not suffer on account of their compassion. The "liberal" states turn out to be the most prosperous and contribute the most to the general welfare. The most conservative ones are more likely than not to be the ones that draw the most government assistance -- e.g. in Rand''s philosophy, they are parasites on society/

She basically hates the poor, while the blue states are the ones with the most compassion.

reply to post by Sestias




I think the map in your OP article sums up whats wrong with the whole system....13 States get less back then they pay in Federal Dollars. No wonder why we have such massive deficits when we as a nation continue to give out more than we take in. I just wish our elected officials could master the basic concepts of addition and subtraction. We can't keep spending more money than we take in on a continual basis......otherwise something bad eventually happens.

Originally posted by Sestias
Ayn Rand asserts that conservatives are the wealth creators and the liberals--those who are poor or care about the poor-- are all parasites on them.

Um .. that's not totally true.

'The Essentials of Objectivism' - taken from 'ANTHEM'

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, whith his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand

She basically hates the poor, while the blue states are the ones with the most compassion.

That's not true either. She doesn't 'hate the poor'. She hates freeloaders. There are poor freeloaders and there are rich freeloaders. Objectivism expects EVERYONE to work to their full potential .. rich or poor. If a person is only smart enough to be able to be a janitor, but is the best janitor he/she can be ... then that person is working to their full potential no matter how much money they make .. she wouldn't 'hate' that person even though they are poor. If a rich person is sitting back and doing nothing and not investing and creating, then that person is not being productive and doesn't fit her Objectivism philosophy.

Another quote from 'Anthem' -

The essense of Objectivism -
1 - Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2 - Episstemology: Reason
3 - Ethics: Self Interest
4 - politics: Capitalism

Translated into familiar language
1 - "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
2 - "You can't eat your cake and have it too."
3 - "Man is an end in h imself."
4 - "Give me liberty or give me death"

Originally posted by Sestias
the liberals--those who are poor or care about the poor

I'm thinking that there could be a whole other thread on that notion. It could easily be argued either way for a very long time. Probably would be the longest thread in ATS history. (complete with a record number of warnings and such.

You know you have to be careful posting this kind of stuff. You're contradicting your fellow Democrats droning on and on about how Republicans are the ultra rich and don't care about the "poor". According to this post Republicans are the "poor", so how would they not care about themselves?

Also, when I don't think of blue states/red states. I always look at the county level maps to see what the state breakdown is.

reply to post by jjkenobi


Whats the big white spot in CO on that map? Who did they vote for?

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well said.

I was thinking mostly about Rand's tirades against compassion in "The Fountainhead" (Mickey and Minnie Mouse, etc.). Granted, architect Roark was designing a public housing project with the aim of affording the poor a more human-scale, dignified environment in which to live.

I have nothing against Rand's values of hard work, achievement, and self-fulfillment. Where I diverge is in her insistence that these goals exclude any understanding or compassion at all for those who have floundered or "failed" in her opinion. I also loathe her glorification of total narcissism and greed.

reply to post by Sestias


First you are over generalizing things by dividing everything into blue and red, i live in a blue state but like ayn rand, so your generalization is false.

Secondly if you would have read atlas shrugged you would know that the bureaucrats were the nes to destroy the poor while the industrialists kept them alive.

Third I like ayn rands books, not necessarily the lady, so this isnt like a cult where you have to worship what she thinks.

reply to post by Sestias


That is right. For the most part, the Red States, the states whiles Republican Representatives spend a disproportionate amount of time rallying against the welfare state are in fact the states that recieve federal funding disproportionately large in comparison to their federal contributions....

...they are the true Welfare States.

I wish some legislator would have the courage to submit legislation that would correct this inequity. Apply a little bit of "Personal Responsibility" to the states, let them "stand on their own two feet" for a change.

New rule; a state can only recieve an amount of federal funding equally proportionate to its federal contributions.

To better illustrate Rand's philosophy and to better delineate my own, I offer a few quotes from her The Virtue of Selfishness:

If one wishes to advocate a free society--that is, capitalism--one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them.

Ok. So far so good. She's beginning to outline her own ideology. But then a few sentences later she apparently contradicts herself. She says:

"Rights" are a moral concept--the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others--the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context--the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind's history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subjected the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social.

What Rand apparently fails to acknowledge is that her own philosophy is as much an ideology as any other political or religious faith. She is the sect's guru and her books are their holy texts. She herself is the higher authority.

I encourage anybody who is interested in Rand to read her philosophy in this book. It's really -- something else. See for yourself.

Personally, I think Mother Theresa made a greater contribution to the world than Bernie Madoff or the Wall Street gang that tanked our economy in 2008. But that's just me.

Well, I guess my last post sort of hit a wall. Anybody out there?