The Parasites

Why is there no entry Parasites in the Ayn Rand Lexicon?! Nor Looters, nor Moochers??! (I almost clicked Entitlement, Age of but then realised I’d misread it.)

It ain’t right. ‘Parasite’ was one of Rand’s favourite words. A search for ‘parasites’ delivered the goods, though. Here are some excerpts from The Ayn Rand Letter, filed under Welfare State.

Morally and economically, the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull. Morally, the chance to satisfy demands by force spreads the demands wider and wider, with less and less pretense at justification. Economically, the forced demands of one group create hardships for all others, thus producing an inextricable mixture of actual victims and plain parasites. Since need, not achievement, is held as the criterion of rewards, the government necessarily keeps sacrificing the more productive groups to the less productive, gradually chaining the top level of the economy, then the next level, then the next. (How else are unachieved rewards to be provided?)

There are two kinds of need involved in this process: the need of the group making demands, which is openly proclaimed and serves as cover for another need, which is never mentioned—the need of the power-seekers, who require a group of dependent favor-recipients in order to rise to power. Altruism feeds the first need, statism feeds the second, Pragmatism blinds everyone—including victims and profiteers—not merely to the deadly nature of the process, but even to the fact that a process is going on.

[A] real turning point came when the welfare statists switched from economics to physiology: they began to seek a new power base in deliberately fostered racism, the racism of minority groups, then in the hatreds and inferiority complexes of women, of “the young,” etc. The significant aspect of this switch was the severing of economic rewards from productive work. Physiology replaced the conditions of employment as the basis of social claims. The demands were no longer for “just compensation,” but just for compensation, with no work required.

So long as the power-seekers clung to the basic premises of the welfare state, holding need as the criterion of rewards, logic forced them, step by step, to champion the interests of the less and less productive groups, until they reached the ultimate dead end of turning from the role of champions of “honest toil” to the role of champions of open parasitism, parasitism on principle, parasitism as a “right” (with their famous slogan turning into: “Who does not toil, shall eat those who do”).

Well, what’s there to say, except that Rand was right on the money? This stuff is razor sharp, and remarkably prescient, given that she wrote it in the early 1970s. And chilling. But I wonder if even Rand would have envisaged a President of the United States who, on the campaign trail just four decades later, would say to his audience

If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

The obvious implication being that if you didn’t build it, it’s not yours, and the government is entitled to take it and “redistribute” it to “somebody else”. The entitlement mentality is endemic and infects the highest levels of government in a country that was once a shining beacon of capitalism.

Death metal is the soundtrack to the End of the Age.

Here’s Brain Drill with The Parasites from their debut album Apocalyptic Feasting.

Hiroshima Day

Today is Hiroshima Day. I remember this because it was also my grandmother’s birthday. I remember the anniversary of her death, too. She died the day I got married.

My grandmother died a widow. And my grandfather effectively died a widower, because my grandmother suffered from Alzheimer’s disease for the last decade of her life.

But enough of the autobiography.

The New Testament gives a quite detailed picture of what a Christian social welfare system would look like. There would be NO government involvement.

I’m no expert on social welfare, but I believe that the economic millstone that is today’s welfare state began in New Zealand with an old age pension introduced in 1898. A widow’s pension (today’s Widow’s Benefit) was introduced in 1911. As one of the country’s earliest social welfare benefits, it would probably be one of the last to go, were New Zealand ever to prosper under a Christian libertarian government.

Here is what the Apostle Paul has to say about the care of widows in the First Epistle to Timothy.

Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (ESV)

Widows are to be cared for by their children or grandchildren, by their second (or subsequent) husbands, by their wider family or, as a last resort, by the church. Sounds like solid, compassionate common sense to me.

In today’s world, of course, is there any general reason why widows who aren’t truly decrepit can’t get jobs and support themselves? I can’t think of one.

Adoption Act 1955, section 3(2)

The Adoption Act 1955, section 3(2), says

An adoption order may be made on the application of 2 spouses jointly in respect of a child.

Supposedly, we must “legalise” gay marriage so that gay couples can adopt children. So where’s the bit that says the two spouses cannot be of the same sex? Why is Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill seeking to amend the Marriage Act and not the Adoption Act?

Someone please explain to me what all the fuss is about. Because I’m baffled. Baffled by bullshit?

C. S. Lewis on (gay) divorce

This is C. S. Lewis writing in 1943 about “legalising” divorce. Although written nearly 70 years ago on the topic of divorce, I think Lewis’s points apply just as well to gay nuptial arrangements in the 21st century.

I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question—how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

C.S. Lewis on marriage governed by the State and marriage governed by the Church

Why This Christian Supports Gay Marriage

How many legs does a donkey have if you call the tail a leg?

[Reprised from SOLO, March 2008. Does calling a civil union a gay marriage make it a marriage?!]

The gut notion of objectivity is captured in an anecdote from the life of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln and a political colleague were discussing how to get a policy across and the colleague suggested labelling the policy in a certain way; they happened to be near a donkey and their dialogue went like this:

‘Sir, how many legs does this donkey have?’
‘Four, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘And how many tails has it?’
‘Why, just one, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘Tell me, sir, what if we were to call the tail a leg; how many legs would the donkey then have?’
‘Five, Mr. Lincoln.’
‘No, sir; for you cannot make a tail into a leg by calling it one.’

Saying doesn’t make it so.

Lloyd Reinhardt, Warranted Doability

Give me Liberty, or give me Death!