
When Ayn Rand Collected Social Security and Medicare, After Years of Opposition - severine
http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
======
dmfdmf
< _A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case
of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on
the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken
from them by force._ >

She answered this question regarding accepting public scholarships but the
principle is the same. The money was taken from her by force so she had every
right to recoup her losses.

[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scho...](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html#order_3)

~~~
wavefunction
It wasn't taken by force but instead by Rand's personal complicity and
implicit consent by living within a society that has decided to enact the
Social Security and Medicare programs and levy fees and taxes associated with
those programs. And given that she received more than she put in, there was no
principle for her to stand behind.

~~~
kolbe
If that's the case, then I hope you will be just as eager to take personal
responsibility for the US's war crimes, if the day of reckoning ever comes.
But I have a feeling you will instead try to focus on your personal efforts to
end US wars, rather than get sucked into the implication that being a US
citizen made you a de facto supporter of the war crimes.

~~~
wavefunction
I would be the first person you might ask to admit my complicity in war crimes
perpetrated by my government. I am involved in anti-war and pro-human
movements but I readily admit that my quality of life is built on the backs of
many innocent lives and deaths.

~~~
kolbe
So, you're just as much of a hypocrite as Rand? She also dedicated her life to
ending behaviors she hated in the US government, but was nevertheless
subjected to the consequences of her failure to stop them.

~~~
wavefunction
No, I am what you would call honest and imperfect, whereas Rand is dishonest
and imperfect.

~~~
kolbe
No, you're not. You live in the US. You pay taxes. Those taxes pay to
kill/torture/subjugate people around the world. If you don't leave the
country, giving up an entire life that you made for yourself with friends and
family here, then you are the exact same type of hypocrite. You say you hate
the wars. You even take some actions to try to stop them, but in the end, you
pay for them and/or work for the entity that is perpetuating them.

(note: I obviously believe neither of you are hypocrites. I'm just trying to
make a point.)

~~~
xchaotic
You may have won an Internet Argument(TM) (or they gave up). The glory!

------
DoodleBuggy
You pay for social security and medicare your entire working life with a
separate direct tax. It is not an entitlement or a handout, it is quite
similar to a pension.

~~~
grandalf
It's supposed to be. But due to demographic shifts and dishonest officials the
program now requires ample supply of young workers in order to be able to pay
out the benefits to older workers. Inevitably, benefits get cut.

If trends continue, the program will eventually turn into pure welfare.

~~~
DoodleBuggy
Most of the supposed difficulties with social security and medicare are
entirely manufactured by politicians to push some specific agenda for an
industry who would benefit directly from particular changes, if not
privatization.

FICA is essentially just an automated savings program, it's not particularly
complex.

------
stale2002
If someone threatens to put you in a cage if you don't give them your money,
are you a hypocrite for getting your money back from them that they took from
you, at a later date?

~~~
woodruffw
That's akin to Nozick's argument, not Rand's.

If Rand wanted to prove a point, she should have sued for her money instead of
collecting it in a tidy monthly check. The former would be completely
frivolous, but also necessarily consistent with her ideology. As it was,
collecting social security and then confabulating the reasons reeks of
intellectual bankruptcy.

~~~
stale2002
No, Rand wants everything to be determined by lawsuits. But if the
law/governmemt is corrupt, there is no reason to just sit there and take it
while you are being abused.

This is a fully consistent argument.

It is morally OK to steal money from thieves who took your money.

------
disposablezero
"If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." -James Madison

Since Tragedy of the Commons and the reality of human nature, libertarianism
is a dog-whistle for utopian anarchism ("rugged individualism"), a nearly
polar-opposite over-reaction to another failed utopian system: communism. The
proven (still flawed, and often recalibrating) workable middle-ground,
balancing competing tyrannies is something approaching democratic socialism...
America though is currently much more on the libertarian side for poor people
and welfare state for the rich due to the undue, corrupting influences of
billionaires' lobbyists and their money (tax code, corporate welfare, etc.) In
countries like the UK, France and other parts of Europe there is guaranteed
healthcare... In America, if you are dying in an ER and broke without
Obamacare, you will likely be forced into bankruptcy from hospital bills.

------
craigvn
The real question is, if her welfare expenses equaled or exceeded what she had
"stolen" would she have stopped taking it back and been happy to die?

------
kolbe
This argument, which I see come up every few years, is disingenuous and
misleading propaganda at best. I don't even like Ayn Rand, but to have her
name smeared by anti-intellectual shit like this so much worse than the
overly-simplified libertarian utopias she tried to convince us could exist.

Edit: apparently I need to have a supporting argument for why this is "anti-
intellectual shit" or else I face a ban or something. The reason: Ayn fought
to change the US into something that fit her vision of a properly organized
society. She failed to make that change, and the US continued to be organized
in a manner that she very much disagreed with. The fact that she participated
in the legal framework that she was subjected to doesn't make her a hypocrite,
nor does it imply that she changed her opinion of welfare states at the end of
her life. The fact that the author of this article comes to this conclusion,
or the fact that he even thinks its noteworthy to rub in her face her failures
to insight the changes wished for, is anti-intellectual shit.

~~~
throwayawnotime
citation needed. Inspired by Rand's naive theories, greenspan and his ilk did
indeed implement a policy of robbing those producers of wealth that did not
also happen to be owners of politicians. That is a fact in my books.
Interesting article thanks for the post.

~~~
ajss
Robbing producers of wealth that did not also happen to be the owners of
politicians is directly contrary to Rand's moral system.

------
grandalf
Social security was supposed to be an investment program so the benefits were
earned after years of contributions.

The problem is, demographics have changed and so it became a welfare program.
To make matters worse, it became unsustainable without significant cuts, which
makes the payroll tax not a required investment but a regressive penalty.

