
Ayn Rand Institute accepts $1m PPP loan from The State - vanusa
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ppp-ayn-rand-idUSKBN248026
======
sp332
I get that this is funny, but given that we all are going to pay for this, we
might as well get what we can from it, right?

Actually this _is_ the argument they used: [https://newideal.aynrand.org/to-
take-or-not-to-take/](https://newideal.aynrand.org/to-take-or-not-to-take/)

~~~
1shooner
The same reason electric cars are pointless. The gas is _already out of the
ground_ at the gas station.

~~~
sp332
You can advocate for electric cars and still consider that making good use of
an old gasoline car might be less carbon intensive than buying a brand new
electric one.

Once the budget for the loan program was fixed, taking the loan wasn't going
to cost us all any more money.

------
Taniwha
Rand herself went on welfare when she was unable to hack it as an author, this
is sort of life imitating art

~~~
beaner
Rand's books gave her more than sufficient income. She took social security
because she paid for it.

~~~
worik
From:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Later_years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand#Later_years)

"after her initial objections, she allowed social worker Evva Pryor, an
employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare"

I do not think it was wrong of her to take government handouts in her later
years. What was wrong, is wrong, is how her acolytes continue in the modern
day breaking down that same system for others.

Evil evil people. Confused and and sad old lady.

------
worik
“the government has no wealth of its own…. It can only redistribute the wealth
of others.”

Not only hypocrisy but also economic illiteracy.

Money != Wealth.

How terrifying that people like this get so powerful in a super state like the
USA. Craven greed mixed with such refusal to deal with what is real mixed with
heartlessness on a industrial scale.

Breathtaking

~~~
nickff
>"How terrifying that people like this get so powerful in a super state like
the USA"

How powerful do you think the Ayn Rand Institute is? From what I can see they
are a marginally influential think-tank.

~~~
worik
Very powerful

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_influenced_by_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_influenced_by_Ayn_Rand)

~~~
nickff
That list includes people such as Bryan Caplan, who said: "I rejected
Objectivism", so I'm not sure exactly how much I would trust it.

~~~
worik
Fair enough It missed (IIRC) Russ Roberts What ever Alan Greenspan is
frightening enough on his own

------
chews
I believe she started with doing plays in cities using WPA money to fund them,
they were mock jury trials performed as stage plays to entice the human into
more civic behavior.

Wonder what they are gonna do with this handout?

~~~
gojomo
If you want these "Payroll Protection Program" loans forgiven – that is, to
receive the 'handout' – the funds must to be spent 75%+ on payroll expenses
during the covered period, with a remainder spent on
mortgages/rent/interest/utilities.

So that's what this recipient, & every other, will be spending the money on –
unless they choose to either repay it, or defraud the program.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755583](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23755583)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23757033](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23757033)

------
foobarbazetc
I don’t really care for either libertarians or Ayn Rand, but as long as it
saved jobs, no matter where, it served its purpose.

------
jdkee
_laughs in larry david_

------
tmaly
wow that is pretty funny.

I thought they were philosophically opposed to government handouts?

~~~
nickff
Can they also refuse to pay taxes for programs they disagree with? If not, it
seems disingenuous to say they should pay for programs, then avoid them.

By that logic, anyone who unsuccessfully campaigns against tax cuts should
continue to pay the previous (higher) tax rate.

~~~
thephyber
By choosing to lobby for less taxation/redistribution and taking advantage of
the benefits they lobby against they are folding on their principles.

And yes, the same for those who argue against tax cuts. They give up their
principles by not sticking to them when they are inconvenient.

But there's also a practical concern: it's not possible to keep track of all
counterfactuals / hypotheticals when it comes to tax/welfare laws. In Ayn
Rand's case, she couldn't afford to live without social security in her later
years (if the reports I read are to be believed). We frequently don't have the
means to be consistent in our principled stands.

~~~
nickff
It seems like your 'practical concern' results in a ratchet against those in
favor of simpler systems (of taxation, regulation, and welfare). The advocates
of complexity can always renege, while the advocates for simplicity must
always suffer.

------
1MachineElf
Criticizing the Ayn Rand Institute for taking a PPP loan is flawed in the same
way criticizing Ayn Rand herself for taking Social Security benefits during
her retirement is flawed. In both cases, there are things the government
forced upon Americans. You cannot avoid paying the taxes that fund social
security without going to prison. In many cases, you could not avoid going to
prison for keeping a non-essential business open through the pandemic. It's
not a hypocritical endorsement of welfare expansion to simply take back from
the state what they forcibly took away from you.

~~~
TrackerFF
Did the government force it upon Americans, or did Americans democratically
agree that this is the system they wanted?

I know it's easy to throw around "force", but in the end, one lives in a
democratic country.

~~~
thephyber
I think they are using "force" in the "the state has a monopoly on the use of
force" sense.

Also, I think it's fine to argue against the current state of laws. It's not
as if we are actually a democracy (at the federal level, the founding fathers
didn't give us any direct democracy tools and those who could vote were an
elite subset of the population). Even today we suffer from bad laws drafted by
special interests and voted into existence by those who accept campaign
contributions from those who drafted the laws.

There is little in the form of "direct democracy" in our current system of
legislation.

