Toggle sidebar

Link: Ayn Rand: Welfare Queen

  • Thread starter Thread starter It's On A Slab
  • Start date Start date
I

It's On A Slab

Guest
Michael Ford: Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers

One of the most miserable human beings to grace the planet. Also, one of the planet's biggest frauds.

Miss Rand, famously a believer in rugged individualism and personal responsibility, was a strong defender of self-interest. She was a staunch opponent of government programs from the New Deal and Social Security to the Great Society and Medicare.

A Library of Congress survey of the most influential books on American readers, "Atlas Shrugged" ranked second only to the Bible. Rand's influence is encyclopedic ranging from Alan Greenspan to Paul "I grew up on Ayn Rand" Ryan (R-Wis), a "Young Gun" who aims to cut or privatize Medicare and Social Security.


...

A heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer brings to mind those today who are equally certain there is no such thing as global warming. Unfortunately, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer.

However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.
 
Bodhisattva said:
So, the government confiscates a portion of her income, and she's a hypocrite for accepting some of it back?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Atlas Shrugged was a very good book (albeit long and slow at times). I don't blame a rich person taking any and all benefits they can b/c they put more than their fair share in the gov't coffers. I despise the ones who do nothing, take gov't handouts, and still want more.
 
luckily for us, there are countless numbers of john galts filling message boards with their awesomeness. although we lost the galtiest of the galts in NYBF, there may be hope for us yet ;)
 
Nate Harris said:
If it's really true that she deliberately did it under a false name then the answer is most definitely yes.
Click to expand...

I don't know why she chose her husband's name. Maybe she did for some transactions. Don't know; don't care.

I certainly find it amusing that this hack writes for the Huffington Post, whose founder got "green" religion when it was lucrative to do so. Yet she married into oil money and has kept all of her oil wealth, including mansions, planes, etc.
 
Alice O'Connor's words and actions were consistent on the topic of Social Security:

"The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom 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. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."

- http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BamainBoston said:
I am confused how acting in one's self interest is in opposition to the philosophy of acting in one's self interest.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. The left is very fond of pointing out the "hypocrisy" of the right/ libertarian, yet refuse to answer for their own issues. I love how Al Gore's house uses a bunch of electricity and he gets no grief (but that's ok b/c he "offsets" the carbon footprint) or how other LA socialites (see Laurie David as just one example) fly private b/t the coasts, own multiple homes, and even destroy wetlands, but are never really called on it and she's still considered an environmentalist.
 
it is bc in this day and age, if you say you support some charity or moral cause, then that makes you a good person. it doesnt matter what you actually do, just as long as you say the right things. if you say you are against people going hungry, it doesnt matter that you take a private jet to the caribbean and have the most expensive suite. to blow $25k in one weekend is fine, as long as you say that people shouldnt go hungry and someone should donate money, then that makes you a good person. this is rampant in our culture. if you are a ceo of a bank, and bankrupt your company, and then get a multibillion dollar buyout, yet fire 20,000 workers.... well as long as you say it keeps you up at night worrying about those fired workers then you are a good person. if you are a dem, and you support rehab centers and food banks, then that is noble..... as long as those clinics and food banks arent in your gated community. i mean you can kill anyone else's neighborhood and guilt and/or sue thm into accepting those types of places, as long as those places arent placed in your own neighborhood where mentally deranged people or criminals can prey on your children and lower your home values. etc ad nauseum
 
BamainBoston said:
I am confused how acting in one's self interest is in opposition to the philosophy of acting in one's self interest.
Click to expand...

Well then, since most of us can score a nice check by playing the socialist game why should we ever attack the idea at all? I guess when Rand described it as a system of looting she meant it in a good way.
 
Nate Harris said:
Well then, since most of us can score a nice check by playing the socialist game why should we ever attack the idea at all? I guess when Rand described it as a system of looting she meant it in a good way.
Click to expand...

You are spotlighting only one aspect of Rand's philosophy - that aspect most oft cited of Rand: "self interest", in other words: "live". Yet you conveniently ignore the other critical aspect, perhaps the most critical aspect - that moral dictate of "let live".

Rand described her philosophy (emphasis mine):

"At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality

2. Epistemology: Reason

3. Ethics: Self-interest

4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."
Click to expand...
 
92tide said:
luckily for us, there are countless numbers of john galts filling message boards with their awesomeness. although we lost the galtiest of the galts in NYBF, there may be hope for us yet ;)
Click to expand...

John Galt was an al Qaeda sympathizer. Didn't he blow up a bldg or something? Probably played violent video games, wasn't lucky with the wimmenz, and his hard drive with full of porn. :)
 
Care to edumacate us on how forced and involuntary fiscal participation in a government-administered universal healthcare system is congruent with Randian Objectivism?

It's On A Slab said:
John Galt was an al Qaeda sympathizer. Didn't he blow up a bldg or something? Probably played violent video games, wasn't lucky with the wimmenz, and his hard drive with full of porn. :)
Click to expand...

I think maybe you're thinking of either Guy Fawkes or Tyler Durden.
 
PacadermaTideUs said:
Care to edumacate us on how forced and involuntary fiscal participation in a government-administered universal healthcare system is congruent with Randian Objectivism?
Click to expand...

There's no need. You just did it. Perhaps you didn't realize that Social Security and Medicare equals forced, involuntary, government-administered fiscal participation.
 
Nate Harris said:
There's no need. You just did it. Perhaps you didn't realize that Social Security and Medicare equals forced, involuntary, government-administered fiscal participation.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to read back a few posts and try to figure out what Ms. O'Connor's views were regarding SS and Medicare. Effort and comprehension are good things! ;)
 
Play dum-dum if you like. You're saying that paying taxes entitles you to Social Security, Medicare AND subsidized Obamacare cuz it's all in your self interest. You don't seem to realize that this is exactly the rationale of the pro-Obamacare camp. You don't seem to realize that you're advocating their basic philosophy.
 
I see you're still having trouble with the whole comprehension thing. No - I'm not saying that paying taxes makes you eligible to entitlements. That would in essence be trying to explain a philosophy while standing on one foot. ;)

I'm saying that it was Ms. O'Connor's position that one who is forced against his or her will to subsidize any policy with which he or she does not agree, is morally entitled to seek recompense in whatever means the forcer makes available - even if that form of recompense is in effect fulfilling the very policy to which the victim originally objected.

Since you brought dumb to the discussion, let's dumb this down:

If you were mugged on the street by gunpoint, and your assailant who took your $100 were later apprehended and your $100 were recovered, would you be wrong for accepting your $100 back? Would accepting that $100 back represent an endorsement of the original mugging?
 
Social Security is constructed in the most moronic way possible. Only an idiot would support it. Yet, I will accept my SS check when the time comes simply because I was forced to participate. Just as I occasionally ride Amtrak even though it is a dumb government program. But, since I'm forced to pay for it .......

And Slab, Rand is a "welfare queen" and a "miserable human being"? Please. You can do better than this nonsense; I have yet to read a legitimate criticism of Rand from you. There are tens of millions of people in this country who take far more than they contribute. Rand was not one of them. Why you are happy with our growing parasitic society I'll never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back