The Ayn Rand Institute: An Institute, Perhaps, But NOT Ayn Rand

The following (I agree with it 100 percent) is written by Susan Hanson at The American Thinker:

The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has turned against Ayn Rand. Our medical system is now completely under the thumbs of the government, and ARI, named for an inveterate enemy of socialism, is explicitly supporting it.

Onkar Ghate, ARI’s Chief Philosophy Officer, wrote a paper called ‘A Pro-Freedom Approach to Infectious Disease’ which he claims is “based on Rand’s conception of liberty.” This paper is a mishmash. He admits that healthcare is heavily controlled by government on the one hand, and then says this fact imposes different responsibilities on the government such as spending more money on hospital capacity. Why is he talking about what the government should do in a government-controlled health care system? Why isn’t he talking about why those controls should be eliminated instead? Ghate states: “In sum, government should not have the power to lock us down in our homes even during a widespread, uncontained outbreak of an infectious disease… But there are valid steps our government should take to increase the capacity of our government-controlled healthcare system…” (Italics added.) He also states that during a pandemic, the controls that cripple doctors, hospitals, etc. should be “suspended.” Why not permanently removed? Why no support for the doctors who want controls removed, but have been silenced and vilified, and face the looming threat of losing their jobs and removal of their medical licenses for resisting government controls?

The government should never be involved in medical decisions between doctor and patient — it is always a violation of individual rights. Before any medical procedure can take place, the patient must give informed consent. Is the Rand Institute fighting the threat of forced vaccine mandates? This year the employees working at ARI’s annual Objectivist Conference (OCON) were required to be vaccinated. Attendees were required to either show proof of vaccination or bring proof of a negative result from a COVID-19 test. Since information about alternate treatments is being suppressed, how can anyone who gets the vaccine be said to have been informed before consent? And if not, then how can anyone morally pressure/require anyone to be vaccinated? ARI actually did the immoral thing by requiring the vaccine for their staff. Does this give aid and comfort to those who would require vaccine passports and mandatory medicine for all citizens? It does. What is needed is a robust rejection of this sort of requirement, not a moral collapse in the face of cultural pressure. Has ARI been in California too long?

ARI promotes as their COVID expert, alleged Objectivist … [for the rest of the article go to the American Thinker]



Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram.