I wonder… do you think she was tempted to write a novel justifying her hypocrisy?
If you’re forced to pay into a system, there is no irony in getting something out of it whether you agree with the system or not.
Current GOP president of the Ayn Rand fan club and Libertarian dreamboat Paul Ryan received Social Security from 16 to 18 when his father passed away, one presumes he hadn’t paid in enough at the time to deserve those benefits.
But that’s the great thing about a selfish philosophy, you can hold it as long as you’re healthy and in your financially productive years and then pretend it never happened when you need help.
Her contributions and subsequent benefits aside, it was a system designed to help those in “need”. That’s something she was absolutely against. At the end of her life she was no different than anybody else. So much for her bullshit philosophy. Therein lies the irony.
i’m sure she kept records on how many of the dollars she received were hers. if she’d lived another 20 years i’m sure she would of stopped before it became a handout, right?
Seems to be more of a GD than a Pit thread. I’ll move it thither.
“Would have”, numbnuts. It’s a conditional modifier of the auxiliary verb “have”.
edit: Posted in good faith before Miller in his abundant wisdom moved the thread to where “numbnuts” is a no-no.
I’m no Rand expert (I read Atlas Shrugged and the one about the architect), but I don’t know why her philosophy woud oppose insurance. I would think it would only oppose extending the benefits to those who don’t contribute. Otherwise, insurance is just a perfectly rational financial gamble (entirely selfish).
And he wants to eliminate that very benefit. Despite the fact that the money was saved and was used for his college education.
Which we paid for.
Oh, JFC. I refuse to “debate” Rand in GD. It gives her more attention than she is due and I’m not contributing to anything that might be mistaken for treating her like a serious subject, (or where I cannot tread the fine line of calling her the “c” word). I’m out. 
Presumably his father did. So your point is…?
Cite?
But she would add the moral indignation that those drawing the money were inferior to those who are healthy and paying in.
No, she would not. If you paid in, you have every right to get the benefit.
He received benefits he would years later tell others in the same situation they hadn’t earned.
just to point out, for the sake of accuracy, would he be against minors collecting benefits?
In the case of insurance it is likely if you find yourself in the position of needing the benefit you will be receiving more than the amount you put in which places you beneath those who are productive.
Well, why don’t you clear this all up be providing a cite that she would say that?
See, I just don’t get this. Leave aside the compelled nature of medicare. When I buy insurance (or an extended warranty or whatever), I’m gambling that I will get more benefits than I pay. If I don’t, it wasn’t worth the purchase. (The other possiblity is that the scope of the loss is so great that it makes me risk averse – which is why I get homeowner’s insurance). In contast, the insurance company is gambling that I won’t collect more than I pay in. In any particular transaction, one of us wins. But, the average person needs to pay in more than they take out, otherwise the system collapses. But I don’t think even Rand would argue that you were unproductive (or inferior) if you “win.”
If Social Security was privatized then yeah, little Paul wouldn’t have been able to afford college drawing from the SS fund his payments made possible over the first 16 years of his life.