This may be GD, but I’m still pretty sure that you’re not allowed to just make up stuff as you go along. In any case, Ayn Rand did apply for Social Security (oh the horror!) and possibly Medicare (oh the humanity!). This is pretty far from the picture of a welfare queen you are trying to paint.
Your critiques would be stronger if each person is freely allowed to choose whether they pay into medicare and social security. Since this is not the case, it’s perfectly legitimate to take the benefits from a system, even if you do not agree with the principles behind it. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
Er. I was trying to be cute, but upon rereading what I wrote, it seems more personal than how I meant it. So I am preemptively apologizing. And hitting myself. :smack:
The main critique here is about her hypocrisy in evading her own principles when it was advantageous and convenient.
Sure, collecting social security when you’re a contributor is no big deal, though it’s undeniably in tension with her ideology. However, the medicare claim is reasonably damning when you look at her conspiratorial views of anti-tobacco research in cancer etc. She essentially dismissed the dangers of her very heavy tobacco habit with asinine polemical argument about government engineering, and then when she predictably got lung cancer requiring surgery she availed herself of the public medical fund she was vehemently against without so much as a hint of recanting her views about tobacco and the importance of a government safety net in such situations.
That was going to be my answer,* had I made it through 203 earlier posts without finding it.
Thank you for getting it into the first page, and saving me the trouble. Now I can read the thread for enjoyment, instead of as a search for a specific contribution.
*more accurately: “As long as Objectivism was good for Ayn Rand, I think it would be out of character for her to care whether it was good for mankind.”
Also, in how excessively vehement she was about the evils of the system. If she had said, “Public assistance is bad,” that would be one thing. But when she declared it to be an “Anti-Life Principle,” that’s kind of difference. That implies that she accepted public assistance, believing it would lead to the death (!) of others.
This is a cautionary tale for us all: try to keep our declarations moderate.
(Make your words sweet, for some day you may have to eat them.)
I had to look him up. He has some weird ideas…on a lot of things.
My problem with philosophical ideologies (aside from being pseudo-intellectual bullshit) is that they are ultimately self-serving and, if implemented, are often destructive to the point of being genocidal. Whether it’s Objectivism, Libertarianism, Communism, National Socialism, various theology-based regimes, various forms of nationalism, even democracy in some cases, they all have one thing in common. It’s that anyone who doesn’t buy into the system is an enemy of the state to be destroyed and anyone who can’t function in the system can go fuck themselves and starve in the streets.
One thing the American founding fathers understood was the concept of checks and balances. And I don’t see anything in Objectivism that provides a check or balanced against unrestrained capitalism. Being able to maximize your potential to achieve is great. But Rand’s philosophy seems to conveniently overlook the fact that a large corporation, left unchecked, can use it’s economic power to trample rights as easily as any government.
There is this thing called sensitivity that I like to practice. Not all Objectivists are as unpleasant as the tools in the upper echelons of the Ayn Rand Institute, and they [the good Objectivists] no doubt take it kind of personally when you trash their beliefs.
ETA: Ironic. I’m practicing a PC-like sensitivity that Objectivism would avowedly be against. It’s funny how things work out.
Yeah, but to suggest that I should think of it in terms of self-sacrifice myself? No thanks! For your sake, I suggest dropping the term “greater good” altogether. I’ve never liked that phrase and it’s use by twisted totalitarian leaders who use people as means to an end.
Sorry, but I’m still not exactly seeing your point. The government took her money for those programs. She availed herself of the benefits of those programs. This does not require her to condone the system to be completely moral.
Now her cigarettes were just plain poor judgement.