Poor whites also have a stigma attached to them when they are identifiable. I can identify here myself. It took me well into my twenties before I figured out how to fit in. Once I figured that out I was no longer identifiable and life became somewhat easier for me. I still had to contend with the low self esteem but it wasn’t as hard once I experienced some acceptance. Blacks get lumped together just as poor whites do. I agree it is instutusionalized racism but not a conscious thing, I don’t believe it is based in hatred for the most part. One of the most basic instincts in the animal kingdom even at the lowest levels is to recognise potential threats, when we don’t understand somethign we tend to err on the sidse of caution. I think somehow it relates more to this.
In the context of Ayn Rand, I would imagine that in her idealized society, people would make hiring decisions based on ability, not on race or other subjective factors.
However, she would also strongly argue that you don’t deserve any special treatment just because you are poor. Rich people are under no obligation to transfer their wealth to those who are less fortunate.
She was also very much against entitlement, whether by birth or through government programs. IIRC, her Atlas Shrugged character Francisco D’Anconia chose to spend a number of years working menial jobs in the copper industry to both learn the ropes and earn the right to take over the family business.
At least before he intentionally destroyed it through criminal fraud and stock manipulation.
So against government programs, she got on Medicare and Social Security in her later years. Cite.
She was a hypocrite.
HoneyBadgerDC–you should be getting the message by now.
Your spiritual marriage to Ms Rand ain’t getting the SDMB Family blessing.
The problem is that he WANTS the marriage, but is at the crush-on-a-photo stage. 
This is probably the best post you’ve ever made.
Not necessarily. She didn’t live in a world where her philosophies had been implemented so she was forced to avail herself of government services that in a perfect world (from her point of view) she wouldn’t have had to submit to.
Modern day conservative retirees who’ve always objected to Social Security come in for these same accusations of hypocrisy. But by law they weren’t allowed to exempt themselves from it, and now, after a lifetime of being forced to contribute to it rather than using that money to provide for their retirement outside the Social Security system, they have no reasonable or financial choice but to avail themselves of it.
It’s worth noting that Rand was no Republican either. Of the United States’ two major political parties, she once stated: *“One wants to control your body and the other wants to control your brain.” *
I’d have difficulty arguing that she was wrong.
As predicted by Okrahoma in post #3.
Oy, how many times do we have to go over this. If you are forced to pay into a system like SS, it’s not hypocritical to take the benefit even if you oppose the system. It would be hypocritical to advocate for the abolition of SS, and then secretly vote for a politician because that pol plans to keep the system in place.
It might be worth noting, if she had ever said anything like that.
And you know this how?
She was. I gave anti trust as an example because she specifically addressed them using the language the poster was asking about, so I thought a concrete example might be helpful.
“The Antitrust laws—an unenforceable, uncompliable, unjudicable mess of contradictions—have for decades kept American businessmen under a silent, growing reign of terror. Yet these laws were created and, to this day, are upheld by the “conservatives,” as a grim monument to their lack of political philosophy, of economic knowledge and of any concern with principles. Under the Antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.” There is only one difference in the legal treatment accorded to a criminal or to a businessman: the criminal’s rights are protected much more securely and objectively than the businessman’s.”
Not just in the real world, but in the academic world too. Her method was to misrepresent other philosophers, and set up her opinion as the only alternative. If you disagreed with her on a philosophical level you were “evil” because you were anti-life. Of course, her main appeal is that she presents everything to be so cut and dried, so you can feel like you have all the answers to very complex subjects.
I really did think she was sexy!
One important stipulation she made was that value placed on something monetary or other needs to be real. If we receive accolades we don't deserve it does our character little good. If we earn something we feel good about ourselves and this will often power us on to the next level.
If a kid white or black grows up in a bad environment he may or may not be able to turn his life around once he becomes an adult. If he doesn't succeed in doing this it is to all of our benefit to offer a helping hand. If the helping hand is just free money it will accomplish nothing. Very often finding something that this young or even older person adapts to can be an expensive and usually unsuccessful undertaking. I feel our best hope is to increase exposure to these individual in a safe environment. Social media is ideally suited to accomplish this. Nobody knows your color, your age, what you look like. Social media sites could set up rules for engagement that depersonalized rejection. A gold miner may sift through hundreds of buckets of mud to find one nugget. He will instantly forget all about the hundreds of buckets that came up empty because he places so much value on that one gold nugget.
My hypothesis is that society has greatly underestimated the power attached to feeling valued. Once we experience this we will fiercely guard it and do whatever it takes to maintain it. I believe it can set off a chain reaction of events that can completely turn many or our lives around but will always remain somewhat fragile and subject to our continued success.
Right, except none of that is really correct. I don’t recall there ever being a “reign of terror” of anti-trust litigation. Typically the market does a pretty good job of setting prices to maximize profitability. And “collusion” is a very specific thing. A group of businessmen conspiring to bilk customers or collude against a rival strikes me as more Wesley Mouch than Hank Rearden.
And the fact is, a lot of regulations are there to protect consumers from the greed and excess of corporations. I think most people like the idea of their home meeting the requirements of local building codes. Or their drugs are tested as “safe”. Or that their bank can’t gamble their life savings to the point where they become insolvent.
You should take a look at some of the interviews with Rand on Youtube. She’s a fascinating and intriguing person to listen to. I’ve watched some of them in the past and it’s funny to see how seasoned interviewers such as Phil Donohue or Johnny Carson are visibly nervous and intimidated by her presence. And not so much because of what she’s saying or doing on their shows but just because of her reputation. It’s as though they know they’re way outgunned intellectually and are hoping to escape the experience without it becoming too obvious.
And who knows, you might even get to hear her opinion of America’s two political parties. 
Overall I think the system works pretty good but when it comes to the drug companies and more recently universities it seems more like extortion than supply and demand.
Agreed.
For her, the state was such a bogeyman, and businessmen were such heroes, that I don’t think she ever even approached the topic of a world where there was too much power held by business. For her there was a mystical faith that self interest, if set free, would work out better for everyone. It’s not hard to find examples of that being disastrously false.
The difference is that her claim of Social Security and Medicare wasn’t based on her need, but on her right. There’s nothing hypocritical about wanting the return of money that had been stolen from you. Remember Hank Rearden and his gold ingot. If she had simply whined that she needed the money, that would have been hypocrisy.
I do not know, one way or the other, but I seriously doubt it. Her health declined seriously in the late '70s, which was the time period that a quote like that would have made sense. She might have said something like it in her kitchen, but I do not believe there is record of her using words in a way that you can torture into something resembling that
She detested Reagan but was generally a supporter of all the other republican presidential candidates of her time. Maybe she was “no republican” by membership, but she certainly openly supported and voted for them.
If it’s not a direct quote, it’s paraphrased from the “Attila and the Witch Doctor” essay in her book For the New Intellectual, which was published in 1961.
And she was still making public speeches almost until her death. Her last speech at the Ford Hall Forum was in 1981. I was there.