Unemployment

In a week or so I will be eligible to collect unemployment, and in the past I didn't take advantage of it because I didn't want to participate in a system that I don't believe in.

But I recently read Ayn Rand's response to someone asking about the morality of accepting the government's unemployment check, and she assured them that it is fine to take advantage of the program, as long as you don't lead people to believe you are an advocate of it.

Still, something about it seems hypocritical. Help me out on this!

(Edited by Eric Scott on 11/11, 9:24am)

Post 1

Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 10:08pm

Eric,

That money is earmarked for use. Now, it can be used exclusively by a bunch of no-good, cradle-to-grave, pie-grabbing welfare-junkies -- or it can be used by a mix of folks (some who are idealistically against it). This is the situation we're now in. And one of these 2 options is the better (for now) -- and it's not hard to discern when what is essential has been made clear.

If you need it, take the damn money and use it to springboard your rational self into a more productive life context. Within the new, productive life complex; turn your back on unemployment and spit at it. Cause a friggen' ruckus about it. When you no longer need it, do something (sometime) in order to fight it, whether by penmanship, political suffrage, or the good ole' greenback.

If you fight it later (from a better life context), then you freaking earned the right to temporarily use it.

Ed

Post 2

Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 11:35pm

Take the money. It was funded with money from your paycheck.

Post 3

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 1:43am

I've never "taken the money". Handouts are for kids.

Post 4

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:10am

Unemployment is not welfare. It is insurance. Whether or not you make a claim is up to you. I was laid off almost two years ago and just found a job about a month ago. Was I collecting unemployment all that time? Nope. I was out there temping. I am in a field that is almost always outsourced. The first few months were rough and I collected unemployment. After that I kept getting assignments lasting 3-4 months. I'm a single mother, but I'm not a welfare queen. I applied for unemployment only when I needed it and I did what I could to not need it.

Collecting unemployment is a personal choice.

Kat

Post 5

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:16am

Eric,

"The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism....The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martydom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it...The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind."
Ayn Rand, "The Question of Scholarships," The Objectivist, June, 1966

I recommend you read the entire article reprinted in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought.

Post 6

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:37am

I would say respect your principles! and be the man you are.
*If* you can afforde to do that!

Post 7

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:04am

Ayn Rand Answers: the Best of her Q & A has this from the questions from "Priniciples of Objectivism Lecture 10" (1976).

"Government controls create unemployment. No matter what happens to your employerm, if you are out of work today, why should you protet him and starve? There cannot be individual responsibility for something that is the government's fault. In any situation where government creates a hardship, that pushes you into a posiition of martyrdom, you are morally justified to take advantage of whatever money is offered to you, provided that you don't spread the kind of ideas that created the trouble."

Whether this is a contradiction of more basic Objectivist principles, you will have to decide for yourself. Personally, I always thought that it was. However, I lost the "Public University Jobs" debate here. Being a reasonable person, I admitted that I was wrong, and I applied for FASFA grants. I am now working at a publicly-financed college and taking classes.

It does make me wonder, you know, all these scientists who claim that the government controls science, so they have to work for the government. I mean, suppose you were interested in physics and the State Science Instititute wanted you to work on the Thompson Harmonizer or the Ferris Persuader. Would you do it? Apparently, many people here would.

But, to give in to my feelings of suspicion about this would be to accept the primacy of consciousness, or intrinsicism or something, and we cannot have that

Post 8

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:08am

While some here are saying, stand by your principles and don't take the money, I say stand by your principles and take your property that was wrongly taken from you back. Don't sacarafice your life to a those who claim that what was stolen from you is no longer yours. This reminds me of a lawsuit involving a bunch of people who stole software code from the company they were working for. They then started a competing company using this stolen code to allow them to get cash to develop new products. They then argued that they no longer used that code and that they were a great company, so shouldn't be held accountable. Talk about disgusting. Don't let anyone tell you that you aren't taking back your own cash. Don't let anyone tell you are letting your principles slide. Take as much as you've paid in taxes.

Ethan

Post 9

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:44am

Take it if you have to, but keep in mind what money is really coming from whose pockets.

I had the ethical decision of whether to attend a public university, which meant less money out of my pocket compared to other options, but obviously taking tax money in the form of subsidized education. I chose to do so - using the reasoning that the taxes that would be collected from me working would far exceed the cost break I got from the public university.

I think this reasoning would have been legitimate (and it sounds like a variant of Rand's reasoning someone posted here) - with one flaw. I later realized that tax money is not all uniform from everyone in the country; in the case of public universities, most of the tax money is from the individual state. I had promptly moved out of state after college. The state of Georgia indeed has stolen far more from me than the cost of the subsidy for the schooling - but as for the state of Indiana where I had attended college, I really was a tax eater, a leech off the taxpayers there.

So it is possible for the Rand-esque reasoning to be an illegitimate rationalization if you don't consider where the money really comes from or goes. I recommend checking into the finer points of where the money really flows with regards to unemployment insurance before deciding whether to apply such reasoning.

Post 10

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:43am

Oops. I guess that sounded a little harsh. Early morning insomnia followed by benydryl, followed by "check Solo".

I've had every kind of job, dishwasher, bus boy, book store stock boy, fabric store stock boy, ice cream store janitor, laborer, drove a "junk' truck, "ground man" for a tree service, carpenter, electrician, four years in the Navy, tossed newspapers, taught martial arts classes, alarm system installer, electronics technician, electronics engineer. I've always been able to find SOME kind of work and I pretty much liked something about all of my jobs. I hate dealing with bureaucrats and their paperwork. I also don't want to mix that kind of tainted money with my own, especially when I don't have to. I don't consider government money "mine", I consider it stolen property. I love Ayn Rand but if I have to disagree with her on this point then I guess I'll just disagree. Tough titties. Eric Scott wouldn't have asked the question if he didn't have a CHOICE in the first place. I congratulate him on his uncomfortable feelings about this issue.

Post 11

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 10:10am

I agree that one should have serious misgivings about taking this kind of benefit when one must but it puts pressure on the philosophy that created it.

Sam

Post 12

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 10:45am

If one has a solid work history and paid into the system, he's owed the money taken from him. But, yes, it's a personal choice. Remember, you have no choice to pay into the system (at gunpoint), but they don't always give you the choice to take it back. If you have that rare moment to get it back...
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/11, 10:56am)

Post 13

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 9:32am

Take it, YOU paid for it. Only a fool wouldn't take his own money.

Companies are force to pay money to the state governments for this program, based on the type of labor and salary. Its not taken from general taxes. Companies discount your salary for it just like Social Security. If your labor is worth only $50,000 to a company, then the government saying they have to "match S.S." does not make you worth $53,150. The company "reduces" your salary to $46,850(approx.) so they are paying out the same amount for your labor.

S.S., medical, unemployment, retirement funds, etc., its all paid by you.

Post 14

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:36pm

"Only a fool wouldn't take his own money."

followed by:

"Companies are force[d] to pay money to the state governments for this program"

You are the fool Glenn Heppard if you think this defines what I consider "my money". Continue with your rationalizations, but when you look at your paycheck [if you have one] and see all the things taken out by the government, just know that I'm not the one running down to any government office standing in line filling out forms clamoring for a piece of your paycheck.

Post 15

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 1:22pm

Eric, after reading all the posts including my own, I would go with what Ed said.
Ciao

Post 16

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 1:37pm

Take it. You have to get back what they steal from you any way you can. I don't see the problem, and I agree with Rand. How can I be wrong?

Post 17

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:10pm

No doubt in my mind,get some of your money back.

Post 18

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:23am

I'm quite disappointed in this group.

You cannot call it "insurance". Insurance is a respectable business. Based on a voluntary decision by free individuals considering future risk. These coerced programs are purely political.

Consider your "sense of life" and self respect. Why taint your savings and personal wealth with stolen money? It cannot be more than a tiny fraction of the total you will earn in your lifetime. Any amount of planning and saving of your money while working should provide enough to tide you over during the weeks you may be unemployed. Using these government handouts just makes you lazy in my opinion. Plan and count on being self sufficient. Participating in these programs is toxic to your self esteem. I would have thought on this website particularly I would have gotten a lot of support for this point of view. It's not all about getting a few dollars and it's not "your money". Avoid the temptation. It's a slippery slope.

Of course, take advantage of whatever you can in an emergency. But don't call making the payments on your new camero an emergency.

Post 19

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:47am