PDA

View Full Version : Ayn Rand collected Social Security




Justinjj1
01-26-2011, 03:26 PM
An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the Ayn Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her husband, Frank O’Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in 1974.

Federal records obtained through a Freedom of Information act request confirm the Social Security benefits. A similar FOI request was unable to either prove or disprove the Medicare claim.

Between December 1974 and her death in March 1982, Rand collected a total of $11,002 in monthly Social Security payments. O’Connor received $2,943 between December 1974 and his death in November 1979.

According to a spokesman in the Baltimore headquarters of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Rand and O’Connor were eligible for both Part A, which provides hospital coverage, and Part B, medical. The spokesman said their eligibility for Part B means they did apply for Medicare; however, he said he was not authorized to release any documentation and referred the request to the CMS New York regional office. That office said they could not locate any records related to Rand and O’Connor.

The couple registered for benefits shortly after Rand, a two-pack-a-day smoker, had surgery for lung cancer in the summer of 1974. Medicare had been enacted nine years earlier in the Social Security Act of 1965 to provide health insurance to those age 65 and older.

http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare

I thought this was pretty amusing, shows what a massive hyprocrite she was.

Stary Hickory
01-26-2011, 03:28 PM
Well she was forced at gunpoint to pay into it. Are you going to turn it down after they forced you to pay into it? If I could both not pay and not collect...I would...I don't have that option...they will kill me if I try not to pay.

trey4sports
01-26-2011, 03:28 PM
if she paid in, it's not hypocritical

Kludge
01-26-2011, 03:29 PM
How does this prove she was a hypocrite? Did she pay into SS?

Justinjj1
01-26-2011, 03:40 PM
How does this prove she was a hypocrite? Did she pay into SS?






Rand herself called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.” She wrote in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness” that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.” ...


Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle.
...

FrankRep
01-26-2011, 03:43 PM
I thought this was pretty amusing, shows what a massive hyprocrite she was.

:rolleyes: Whatever...

MRoCkEd
01-26-2011, 03:48 PM
How is getting some of your money back the same as "accepting government controls"?

Galileo Galilei
01-26-2011, 03:48 PM
http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare

I thought this was pretty amusing, shows what a massive hyprocrite she was.

the money she was forced to pay into it was returned to her with interest.

Kludge
01-26-2011, 03:48 PM
...

So wouldn't she have been perpetuating the system if she didn't collect and allowed gov't to keep the money she paid in? If you're arguing that she should not have paid taxes at all, I could accept that.

VBRonPaulFan
01-26-2011, 03:51 PM
lol, getting money back you've had stolen from you isn't perpetuating the system. it's reclaiming what's been stolen from you. now if she went out and actively participated in trying to get more SS benefits, or expanding the program somehow - THAT is perpetuating the system. what a sad smear attempt. i'm not in love with Rand or anything, but if you're going to try to paint a picture, at least think through your argument.

Brett85
01-26-2011, 03:54 PM
I support abolishing SS and Medicare, but when I retire I'm still going to sign up for those programs if they're still there. I would just be getting my own money back.

roho76
01-26-2011, 04:00 PM
the money she was forced to pay into it was returned to her with interest.

That was worth less via inflation. Just saying. I agree. Get as much of your money back as possible.

TroySmith
01-26-2011, 04:02 PM
Ragnar Danneskjöld.

sevin
01-26-2011, 04:22 PM
http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare

I thought this was pretty amusing, shows what a massive hyprocrite she was.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQr4gCjmme6d3JWpkeF-iABU003GThQKJK1MXAbfYIVAS4h9HyrDA

BarryDonegan
01-26-2011, 04:27 PM
When you are forced at gunpoint to purchase retirement insurance, it isn't really hypocritical in my opinion to collect it any more than it is hypocritical to collect a tax refund on taxes you paid or any other type of returning of your property back from the government.

college4life
01-26-2011, 04:34 PM
Justin you are not too smart and you suck.

Your "work" will just fade away, Ayn Rand is a legend and as everyone has pointed out it is by no means hypocritical to collect after she contributed a ton to the state.

Romulus
01-26-2011, 04:39 PM
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQr4gCjmme6d3JWpkeF-iABU003GThQKJK1MXAbfYIVAS4h9HyrDA

repz!

Vessol
01-26-2011, 04:41 PM
So lets say a man mugs me, steals my wallet and two hundred dollar bills. A few years later the man comes back to me after reforming his ways and offers me the money that he stole from me years before.

Is it hypocritical for me to accept that money?

Justinjj1
01-26-2011, 05:10 PM
Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, the woman who viewed all government programs and social safety nets as immoral, took Social Security payments and Medicare in her last few years in order not to be financially wiped out.
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.
She did not live by her own moral code and stand on her own principles, that is hypocrisy. The article implied that she also took Medicare benefits, a program that was only 9 years old at the time. This coming from a woman that implied that people who took help from the government were "moochers" and morally weak. Like the article stated, most other influential libertarians refused to participate in Social Security on principle, but not her.


Social Security works more as a welfare program than a retirement program, we all know that. Most people get more back in benefits than they pay in.

low preference guy
01-26-2011, 05:12 PM
Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, the woman who viewed all government programs and social safety nets as immoral, took Social Security payments and Medicare in her last few years in order not to be financially wiped out.
She did not live by her own moral code and stand on her own principles, that is hypocrisy. The article implied that she also took Medicare benefits, a program that was only 9 years old at the time. This coming from a woman that implied that people who took help from the government were "moochers" and morally weak. Like the article stated, most other influential libertarians refused to participate in Social Security on principle, but not her.


Social Security works more as a welfare program than a retirement program, we all know that. Most people get more back in benefits than they pay in.

Translation: If someone steals your money and you get it back, then you are a moocher.

Kludge
01-26-2011, 05:14 PM
Translation: If someone steals your money and you get it back, then you are a moocher.

Doesn't address "Most people get more back in benefits than they pay in" however, which is true. Did Rand take out more than she paid in? Very unlikely. Would she have continued to take more out even if she reached the threshold of what she paid in? Maybe.

Though, I think the others were mistaken in protesting by refusing to take money from the gov't. That stance will only hurt the people who don't deserve it.

erowe1
01-26-2011, 05:27 PM
http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare

I thought this was pretty amusing, shows what a massive hyprocrite she was.

I don't understand. How does that make her a hypocrite? Did she say that it was wrong for people to collect SS?

Vessol
01-26-2011, 05:28 PM
Doesn't address "Most people get more back in benefits than they pay in" however, which is true. Did Rand take out more than she paid in? Very unlikely. Would she have continued to take more out even if she reached the threshold of what she paid in? Maybe.

Though, I think the others were mistaken in protesting by refusing to take money from the gov't. That stance will only hurt the people who don't deserve it.

Overall, you pay in much more in overall taxes than you ever "receive back". I say, bleed the government for every dime they take from you.

erowe1
01-26-2011, 05:28 PM
She did not live by her own moral code and stand on her own principles, that is hypocrisy.

Did her moral code include a rule that it's wrong to collect SS?

pcosmar
01-26-2011, 05:49 PM
Interesting to see kids who have paid little or nothing into the "system" complain about folks that have had their money taken for years (30 or 40 years) getting some back.

I hope to get some of mine back in a few years, though I have doubts about that.
I started paying at 12 yrs old. in 1969.

Promontorium
01-26-2011, 05:56 PM
If you'd read Atlas Shrugged you wouldn't call her a hypocrite. She promoted getting back from the government what was stolen. You are the hypocrite.

I also don't understand what kind of person you are that you think you can just post little snippets attacking a woman who's been dead 28 years on a forum that has nothing to do with her.

I think that defines troll. You clearly follow the Democratic snide party line bs that Ron Paulers are Objectivists, and you just want to insult. Well you failed to insult, but I guess you won in trolling.

Kludge
01-26-2011, 06:01 PM
Interesting to see kids who have paid little or nothing into the "system" complain about folks that have had their money taken for years (30 or 40 years) getting some back.

I hope to get some of mine back in a few years, though I have doubts about that.
I started paying at 12 yrs old. in 1969.

The system is underfunded and pays too much, and hasn't been changed. Those of us in the teens (and those up to the 30's or 40's) paying now will likely see dramatically less (or, more likely, nothing) when it comes time to collect, so it's a bit distressing to see people collecting on it at all while we still pay on it, but they'd be misdirected to assign blame to those taking SS instead of the gov't.

Fredom101
01-26-2011, 06:01 PM
This doesn't bother me about Ayn Rand.

What does bother me is that she was never able to get past the contradictions in her philosophy. She advocated a system of 0 taxes but refused to accept the arguments for anarcho-capitalism. Beyond that, she was quite the war monger, especially in her later years- promoting the collectivism that she was so completely against in her works.

low preference guy
01-26-2011, 06:05 PM
This doesn't bother me about Ayn Rand.

What does bother me is that she was never able to get past the contradictions in her philosophy. She advocated a system of 0 taxes but refused to accept the arguments for anarcho-capitalism.

i think that's because the arguments for anarcho-capitalism make a very weak case. they try to argue the issue based on a new ethical system different from hers. some of them use the "non-aggression axiom", which is not an axiom. so she obviously denounced them as she should.

Vessol
01-26-2011, 06:09 PM
i think that's because the arguments for anarcho-capitalism make a very weak case. they try to argue the issue based on a new ethical system different from hers. some of them use the "non-aggression axiom", which is not an axiom. so she obviously denounced them as she should.

How is the non-aggression principle not an axiom? And could you describe the weak case of AnCaps?

low preference guy
01-26-2011, 06:12 PM
How is the non-aggression principle not an axiom?

think about that an axiom means and you'll figure it out.


And could you describe the weak case of AnCaps?

we've been through that in a lot of threads... i'm not going to derail this one besides posting a quick response to that criticism of Rand.

pcosmar
01-26-2011, 06:18 PM
The system is underfunded and pays too much, and hasn't been changed. Those of us in the teens (and those up to the 30's or 40's) paying now will likely see dramatically less (or, more likely, nothing) when it comes time to collect, so it's a bit distressing to see people collecting on it at all while we still pay on it, but they'd be misdirected to assign blame to those taking SS instead of the gov't.

Very likely true. I would like to see the system ended, I have no doubt that it was nothing but a ponzi scheme to start with. Folks were supposed to die before it paid off.
However, I have been forced to pay into it for years. If possible, I intend to get some back. That is looking more unlikely all the time.

emazur
01-26-2011, 06:19 PM
OP, unless you intend to refuse SS when you retire, shut up. I hate SS/Medicare but intend to get back what was taken from me when I retire (if the goddamn money is even available).

Fredom101
01-26-2011, 06:23 PM
i think that's because the arguments for anarcho-capitalism make a very weak case. they try to argue the issue based on a new ethical system different from hers. some of them use the "non-aggression axiom", which is not an axiom. so she obviously denounced them as she should.

So how do you have a system of government with no taxes?
Taxes are collectivistic extortion, so if you are a true follower of the Rand, you cannot rightly accept them.

TroySmith
01-26-2011, 07:35 PM
This doesn't bother me about Ayn Rand.

What does bother me is that she was never able to get past the contradictions in her philosophy. She advocated a system of 0 taxes but refused to accept the arguments for anarcho-capitalism. Beyond that, she was quite the war monger, especially in her later years- promoting the collectivism that she was so completely against in her works.


The second is not accurate. The latter myth has came up in this forum before and is based off a youtube clip that she did with a talk show host. She was a non-interventionist, but believed that since we built most of the technology used for extracting foreign oil and Arab nations subsequently nationalizing that oil was equal to theft. She, therefore, argued it was in fact our property and we had the right to take it.

I've never seen her advocate zero taxes, so a source would be nice. She was clearly in the minarchist camp and believed government had a small, but necessary, role.

AGRP
01-26-2011, 07:42 PM
oh dear :collins:

MN Patriot
01-26-2011, 07:49 PM
Everyone misses this crucial point: Social Security is a pay as you go financial scam. There is no lock box, savings account, or Social Security trust fund. The money people collect is stolen from someone else. So anyone who collects the stolen money is endorsing the system.

That is the tragedy of our kleptocracy, everyone is a victim AND a perpetrator. People hate the system, but do little to end it.

20 years from now when I am eligible for SS, will I collect? It depends on if the system is changed by then, a lot could happen by then. I hate to admit, after paying into it for years, I feel like everyone else, I am entitled to something from it. What a rotten feeling.

cindy25
01-26-2011, 08:00 PM
she paid for it

starve the beast

susano
01-26-2011, 08:08 PM
OP is doing exactly what the MSNBC communists do every night. Maddow did it last night.

She was reporting about some congressman who said we should return the function of disaster relief to the states. Then his home state, Utah, had bad floods and the congressman said Utah was entitled to disaster relief. Of course, Maddow was all muwahahaha!!! You like socialism, NOW, don't you congressman?!, which is very skilled psychological manipulation of her true believer audience. Naturally, she made no mention of the fact that the people of Utah, like every other state, have paid billions in taxes to the feds, so they DON'T HAVE THE MONEY THEMSELVES to cover the costs of the floods. Had they never been looted in the first place they would have had ALL of their money to deal with their own problems - AND that money wouldn't have had a huge chunk skimmed off to support worthless federal workers.

OP's position seems to be that the one who is stolen from is the problem.

Kludge
01-26-2011, 08:08 PM
Everyone misses this crucial point: Social Security is a pay as you go financial scam. There is no lock box, savings account, or Social Security trust fund. The money people collect is stolen from someone else. So anyone who collects the stolen money is endorsing the system.

That is the tragedy of our kleptocracy, everyone is a victim AND a perpetrator. People hate the system, but do little to end it.

20 years from now when I am eligible for SS, will I collect? It depends on if the system is changed by then, a lot could happen by then. I hate to admit, after paying into it for years, I feel like everyone else, I am entitled to something from it. What a rotten feeling.

I think you're looking at it backwards. The government (not its citizens) needs tax money to operate. Paying into it is the problem, not taking out of it. Taxes will not pay the majority of expenses in the future, anyway -- it will be US Government debt. Already, a large portion is debt, and this will be unsustainable. We should be trying to stop the theft as quickly as possible, and this will have to come from cutting off the gov't from funding and taking what it has until it is no longer able to sustain itself. Likely, it will do that without our help.

Anti Federalist
01-26-2011, 08:11 PM
oh dear :collins:

Thread winner

susano
01-26-2011, 08:12 PM
This is how socialism corrupts everyone. When the people are stolen from, it's natural that they want their money back. The problem is that that money was spent as soon as it was looted and current payouts, as with all Ponzi schemes, require constant looting.

low preference guy
01-26-2011, 08:12 PM
So how do you have a system of government with no taxes?

Rand addressed that issue in her essay “Government Financing in a Free Society”, in The Virtue of Selfishness


Taxes are collectivistic extortion, so if you are a true follower of the Rand, you cannot rightly accept them.

Taxes are wrong and should not be collected. I agree with Rand.

Grubb556
01-26-2011, 08:15 PM
I don't blame her trying to claw back some stolen money, but I guess that is the problem with SS. If it gets abolished, it seems somebody will get the short stick.

low preference guy
01-26-2011, 08:15 PM
I've never seen her advocate zero taxes, so a source would be nice. She was clearly in the minarchist camp and believed government had a small, but necessary, role.


In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

Link (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html)

FreeBass
01-26-2011, 08:21 PM
I think the biggest point is this.

Whatever entitlement program you can think of -- whether it be welfare, food stamps, or social security -- not accepting it doesn't change a damn thing. If you don't accept the money, it doesn't mean that the federal budget will be reduced. On the contrary, it is more likely that somebody else will get the money. In other words, the system will never change if the receivers of the money refuse to accept -- there will always be others that will gladly take that money instead. The system can only changed when you abolish the programs that take money from one person and gives it to another.

If I could qualify for section 8 housing, I would definitely take the free money and I'm a libertarian (one that leans towards anarchy). And I am nowhere near poor. Would you rather be the fucker or the fuckee? I know some will say that a libertarian society wouldn't be that way. I understand that, but that's simply not the reality that we live in today.

MN Patriot
01-26-2011, 08:32 PM
I think you're looking at it backwards. The government (not its citizens) needs tax money to operate. Paying into it is the problem, not taking out of it. Taxes will not pay the majority of expenses in the future, anyway -- it will be US Government debt. Already, a large portion is debt, and this will be unsustainable. We should be trying to stop the theft as quickly as possible, and this will have to come from cutting off the gov't from funding and taking what it has until it is no longer able to sustain itself. Likely, it will do that without our help.

Yes, I agree, defund the beast. I have been trying to incite a tax revolt in these forums for some time now, but everyone is scared of the beast. I would like to see Rand Paul or Michelle Bachmann introduce legislation to end tax withholding. Make everyone write a check every month. People would get sick of that in a hurry. But the political Establishment doesn't want to free the tax slaves.

dbill27
01-26-2011, 09:03 PM
THE FACT that ayn rand was so poor after having sold millions of books is due to the fact she paid 90% taxes. This is justification of everything her book was about, that even a hardworking genius like herself was brought down to their level of the second handers. This in no way makes her a hypocrite. In fact, in atlas shrugged, dagnar stole and gave the product of hard workers back to them in gold because it was what had been taken from them. Long live the memory of AYN RAND!!! Who is john galt?

Justinjj1
01-26-2011, 10:32 PM
Everyone misses this crucial point: Social Security is a pay as you go financial scam. There is no lock box, savings account, or Social Security trust fund. The money people collect is stolen from someone else. So anyone who collects the stolen money is endorsing the system.

That is the tragedy of our kleptocracy, everyone is a victim AND a perpetrator. People hate the system, but do little to end it.



Thank you, someone gets it. Here is a woman who made her entire career railing against the system in theory, yet perpetuated the problem in reality. The money she spent in Social Security was not hers to get back, it was stolen from someone else. Besides, her generation paid VERY little into Social Security. If you think people on safety nets are leaches on society, then don't become a leach yourself. If everyone stopped leaching off the system, then the problem would disappear.

Contrast Ayn Rand to someone like Ron Paul who refused to let his children get Federal student loans, and refuses to sign up for a Congressional pension. That is putting your money where your mouth is.

This entitlement mentality, that everyone feels like they are owed something because they've paid taxes sometime in their life, is the problem.

Kludge
01-26-2011, 10:46 PM
Thank you, someone gets it. Here is a woman who made her entire career railing against the system in theory, yet perpetuated the problem in reality. The money she spent in Social Security was not hers to get back, it was stolen from someone else. Besides, her generation paid VERY little into Social Security. If you think people on safety nets are leaches on society, then don't become a leach yourself. If everyone stopped leaching off the system, then the problem would disappear.

Contrast Ayn Rand to someone like Ron Paul who refused to let his children get Federal student loans, and refuses to sign up for a Congressional pension. That is putting your money where your mouth is.

This entitlement mentality, that everyone feels like they are owed something because they've paid taxes sometime in their life, is the problem.

She did not perpetuate the system by taking SS$. She collected money from the government. If you want to argue she's perpetuating the system, rail against her for PAYING the gov't. Government funds are not the funds of its citizens -- How long ago was Wealth of Nations?? Government requires tax money to sustain itself. Citizens do NOT require tax money to sustain themselves. The money comes from the Gov't, not the citizens, and the sooner the gov't collapses from insufficient INCOME and too much OUTGO, it will collapse, not because Ayn Rand paid SS taxes and then didn't collect it - or anyone else for that matter.

To destroy the system, it must collapse. It will not collapse from having too much money, even if RP or whoever else was making an ideological point while doing so -- it isn't practical and is instead counter-productive unless RP really thinks the US Government can recover to the point where it can continue the current Welfare-Warfare state, which I put at a near-nil chance.

Kylie
01-26-2011, 10:48 PM
Everyone misses this crucial point: Social Security is a pay as you go financial scam. There is no lock box, savings account, or Social Security trust fund. The money people collect is stolen from someone else. So anyone who collects the stolen money is endorsing the system.

That is the tragedy of our kleptocracy, everyone is a victim AND a perpetrator. People hate the system, but do little to end it.

20 years from now when I am eligible for SS, will I collect? It depends on if the system is changed by then, a lot could happen by then. I hate to admit, after paying into it for years, I feel like everyone else, I am entitled to something from it. What a rotten feeling.



Okay. So how do we choose who gets screwed in this deal?

I have paid in since I was 15, I'm 35. I'll take the shaft if it means my kids won't be screwed in the end, and will actually have their own abilities to save for what ever they choose.

heavenlyboy34
01-26-2011, 10:49 PM
Thank you, someone gets it. Here is a woman who made her entire career railing against the system in theory, yet perpetuated the problem in reality. The money she spent in Social Security was not hers to get back, it was stolen from someone else. Besides, her generation paid VERY little into Social Security. If you think people on safety nets are leaches on society, then don't become a leach yourself. If everyone stopped leaching off the system, then the problem would disappear.

Contrast Ayn Rand to someone like Ron Paul who refused to let his children get Federal student loans, and refuses to sign up for a Congressional pension. That is putting your money where your mouth is.

This entitlement mentality, that everyone feels like they are owed something because they've paid taxes sometime in their life, is the problem.

Excellent point. :cool:

heavenlyboy34
01-26-2011, 10:51 PM
She did not perpetuate the system by taking SS$. She collected money from the government. If you want to argue she's perpetuating the system, rail against her for PAYING the gov't. Government funds are not the funds of its citizens -- How long ago was Wealth of Nations?? Government requires tax money to sustain itself. Citizens do NOT require tax money to sustain themselves. The money comes from the Gov't, not the citizens, and the sooner the gov't collapses from insufficient INCOME and too much OUTGO, it will collapse, not because Ayn Rand paid SS taxes and then didn't collect it - or anyone else for that matter.

To destroy the system, it must collapse. It will not collapse from having too much money, even if RP or whoever else was making an ideological point while doing so -- it isn't practical and is instead counter-productive unless RP really thinks the US Government can recover to the point where it can continue the current Welfare-Warfare state, which I put at a near-nil chance.

False. There was no income tax until the 20th century. Government (assuming that it is legitimate) is rightfully funded by tariffs and other forms of indirect taxation. It's frankly shocking to see a so-called "constitutionalist" (or at least, some sort of hanger-on to Constitutionalists) advocating the income tax as you just did. :eek:

low preference guy
01-26-2011, 10:55 PM
False. There was no income tax until the 20th century. Government (assuming that it is legitimate) is rightfully funded by tariffs and other forms of indirect taxation. It's frankly shocking to see a so-called "constitutionalist" (or at least, some sort of hanger-on to Constitutionalists) advocating the income tax as you just did. :eek:

lol!

1. Kludge is an anarchist.
2. Tariffs are taxes, and thus funding government with tariffs is illegitimate.
3. He is not advocating for an income tax in that post. That's just hilarious. He doesn't even mention "income tax".

ClayTrainor
01-26-2011, 10:59 PM
If she's a hypocrite for taking government money, than we're all hypocrites. How many libertarians never drive on a government road, or manage to avoid virtually every government monopolized service?

Just because a slave accepts a meal from the slave master, doesn't mean he endorses the slavery.

Carehn
01-26-2011, 11:07 PM
If she's a hypocrite for taking government money, than we're all hypocrites. How many libertarians never drive on a government road, or manage to avoid virtually every government monopolized service?

Just because a slave accepts a meal from the slave master, doesn't mean he endorses the slavery.

Well, I was going to reply but you stole my post from me.

Lucille
01-27-2011, 09:52 AM
Isabel Paterson (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/rose-wilder-lane-isabel-paterson-and-ayn-rand-three-women-who-inspired-the-modern-libertarian-movement/) didn't.


By 1949, Paterson’s libertarian views became too much for editors of the New York Herald Tribune, and she was fired. Nonetheless, she expressed her gratitude, saying they probably published more of her work than would have been tolerated anywhere else. They gave her a small pension, and she got along by investing her savings in real estate. She refused Social Security, returning her card in an envelope marked “Social Security Swindle.”

TNforPaul45
01-27-2011, 11:23 AM
http://www.patiastephens.com/2010/12/05/ayn-rand-received-social-security-medicare

I thought this was pretty amusing, shows what a massive hyprocrite she was.

Wow how incredibly stupid that comment is. That's like saying "Well Jesus was great, but he ate with sinners, so I think it's funny how it shows how massive of a hypocrite he is."

Acala
01-27-2011, 11:23 AM
If she's a hypocrite for taking government money, than we're all hypocrites. How many libertarians never drive on a government road, or manage to avoid virtually every government monopolized service?

Just because a slave accepts a meal from the slave master, doesn't mean he endorses the slavery.

This^

I am not a big Ayn Rand fan, but this isn't a fair criticism. In a statist society you CAN'T live without getting some government benefits.

Of course the taxpayers pay my paycheck (against their will, presumably) so I am guilty of a worse hypocrisy.

As for SS, I have been paying in for over 30 years and would opt out tomorrow if I could.