Ayn Rand

[Dejanic]

Ayn Rand, a terrible, Satanic, wicked individual that perfectly represents the evil and immoral Libertarian mentality.

A massive hypocrite funnily enough, considering she happily relied on government welfare multiple times throughout her life.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The Objectivist philosophy established by Ayn Rand is so evil. I deeply hate objectivism, and Ayn Rand.

It promotes the worst of the worst:

- Greed
- Narcissism
- Egoism
- Love of Money
- Zionism
- Selfishness

Objectivism is very strange in terms of time. It is not reactionary. It is not romantic. It is not conservative. It is not liberal. It is not progressive. It is not revolutionary.

It is not reactionary because Ayn Rand and her objectivist philosophy never wanted to go back in time. It is not romantic because it promotes egoism, rationalism, reason, and individualism. It is not conservative because it is atheistic, anti-family, and promotes radical feminism. It is not liberal because liberals promote sympathy, and the objectivist philosophy is not sympathetic, promoting selfishness, and the "Law of the Jungle." It is not progressive because objectivism does not aim for anything. It is not revolutionary because objectivism does not rebel against anything, and wants to conserve the capitalist mode of production. Objectivism is useless in almost all political fields.

This is terribly hyperbolic.

I mean, there's plenty about Rand and her philosophy to shit on, but this is an oversimplification and an exaggeration.

[The Liberated Territories]

Ayn Rand, a terrible, Satanic, wicked individual that perfectly represents the evil and immoral Libertarian mentality.

A massive hypocrite funnily enough, considering she happily relied on government welfare multiple times throughout her life.

Absolutely false.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ayn Rand, a terrible, Satanic, wicked individual that perfectly represents the evil and immoral Libertarian mentality.

A massive hypocrite funnily enough, considering she happily relied on government welfare multiple times throughout her life.

Absolutely false.

I mean, she did pick up social security even when she was all "fuck the altruist system!".

She also wasn't very consistent post-Atlas Shrugged in her belief system. Her school acolytes was more of a cult of personality than an actual philosophical group, tbh, knowing what I know about her.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ayn Rand, a terrible, Satanic, wicked individual that perfectly represents the evil and immoral Libertarian mentality.

A massive hypocrite funnily enough, considering she happily relied on government welfare multiple times throughout her life.

Now this is a you problem. Ayn Rand wasn't any of these things.

She was misguided. And she was an amateur reactionary Russian writer who let her childhood under the Soviet Union and reason why she left the Soviet Union color her beliefs in life to meme-tier proportions, but she wasn't "evil".

[The Liberated Territories]

Absolutely false.

I mean, she did pick up social security even when she was all "fuck the altruist system!".

She also wasn't very consistent post-Atlas Shrugged in her belief system. Her school acolytes was more of a cult of personality than an actual philosophical group, tbh, knowing what I know about her.

Social Security isn't welfare. It is a (very flawed) form of insurance.

It's not hypocritical to collect your own money.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, she did pick up social security even when she was all "fuck the altruist system!".

She also wasn't very consistent post-Atlas Shrugged in her belief system. Her school acolytes was more of a cult of personality than an actual philosophical group, tbh, knowing what I know about her.

Social Security isn't welfare. It is a (very flawed) form of insurance.

It's not hypocritical to collect your own money.

It is hypocritical when the very reason to exist for the Social Security system is a form of safety net for workers.

"Collecting your own money" is not really accurate, since you get much more than what you usually put in, and it's usually at the end of your life, meaning, it is when you are no longer productive to society, something Rand made clear in her writings she despised because it was "mooching" off of people.

You trying to defend Rand against an ex-Randian is not working, really.

[Cedoria]

Stateless societies were the norm up until the 16th century or so. Y'know, BEFORE the Nation-State existed?

... Are you seriously telling me that feudal monarchies where a large amount of the populace lived as serfs was "stateless?" this is about as bad as Rothbard claiming that Celtic Ireland was anarcho-capitalist. There are other forms of state besides the nation-state. The Tsarist Russian Empire is not a state according to you.

No, it doesn't, but what you think Utopia means and what it actually means are likely two different things. Perhaps defining it from your perspective would make this discussion clearer?

u·to·pi·a
yo͞oˈtōpēə/
noun
noun: Utopia; plural noun: Utopias; noun: utopia; plural noun: utopias

an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

That's fundamentally the society that Marx was obsessed with bringing about.

Find me a quote where he says that a classless, stateless, moneyless society would be 'perfect'. He thought it would be desirable, not perfect.

You have disproved your contention with your own reference here.

[Cedoria]

Absolutely false.

I mean, she did pick up social security even when she was all "fuck the altruist system!".

She also wasn't very consistent post-Atlas Shrugged in her belief system. Her school acolytes was more of a cult of personality than an actual philosophical group, tbh, knowing what I know about her.

They still are.

[Cedoria]

I mean, she did pick up social security even when she was all "fuck the altruist system!".

She also wasn't very consistent post-Atlas Shrugged in her belief system. Her school acolytes was more of a cult of personality than an actual philosophical group, tbh, knowing what I know about her.

Social Security isn't welfare. It is a (very flawed) form of insurance.

It's not hypocritical to collect your own money.

It is if you spend most of your time whining about having to contribute to it.

[The Liberated Territories]

Social Security isn't welfare. It is a (very flawed) form of insurance.

It's not hypocritical to collect your own money.

It is hypocritical when the very reason to exist for the Social Security system is a form of safety net for workers.

"Collecting your own money" is not really accurate, since you get much more than what you usually put in, and it's usually at the end of your life, meaning, it is when you are no longer productive to society, something Rand made clear in her writings she despised because it was "mooching" off of people.

You trying to defend Rand against an ex-Randian is not working, really.

Social Security is not welfare, it is an entitlement. Your original assertion is wrong.

"Since you get more than what you usually put in" lolno

You must have been a pretty bad Randian then.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Social Security isn't welfare. It is a (very flawed) form of insurance.

It's not hypocritical to collect your own money.

It is if you spend most of your time whining about having to contribute to it.

I mean, even if you assume Rand didn't say anything explicit, Alan Greenspan, one of her top "disciples" was straight up against social security cuts.

Rand being a personality cult doesn't help the assertion that there isn't a case of hypocrisy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It is hypocritical when the very reason to exist for the Social Security system is a form of safety net for workers.

"Collecting your own money" is not really accurate, since you get much more than what you usually put in, and it's usually at the end of your life, meaning, it is when you are no longer productive to society, something Rand made clear in her writings she despised because it was "mooching" off of people.

You trying to defend Rand against an ex-Randian is not working, really.

Social Security is not welfare, it is an entitlement. Your original assertion is wrong.

"Since you get more than what you usually put in" lolno

You must have been a pretty bad Randian then.

I actually have read what she and her disciples wrote after Atlas Shrugged, including "The Virtue of Selfishness" which is a composition of her own self-writings and those of her first disciples, including Peikoff. It's no coincidence that Alan Greenspan, a Randian, thought that unironically "Social Security was a system of altruism at its worst. Its beneficiaries were looters. Raising their taxes and cutting their benefits was no loss to society.”

http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when ... icare.html

An entitlement is still welfare, it's just another name for welfare. Medicare is also an entitlement, it is still welfare. Entitlements are a class of welfare, but not all welfare is reduced to entitlements. Also, during Rand's time, you did get more back than what you put in. Of course, your own article proves me wrong on today's social security system, sure, but in the past that used to be the case and even the article acknowledges that.''EDIT: Also, I just got word that Social Security is not even an entitlement, so it seems you're still wrong

[The Liberated Territories]

Social Security is not welfare, it is an entitlement. Your original assertion is wrong.

"Since you get more than what you usually put in" lolno

You must have been a pretty bad Randian then.

I actually have read what she and her disciples wrote after Atlas Shrugged, including "The Virtue of Selfishness" which is a composition of her own self-writings and those of her first disciples, including Peikoff. It's no coincidence that Alan Greenspan, a Randian, thought that unironically "Social Security was a system of altruism at its worst. Its beneficiaries were looters. Raising their taxes and cutting their benefits was no loss to society.”

http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when ... icare.html

An entitlement is still welfare, it's just another name for welfare. Medicare is also an entitlement, it is still welfare. Entitlements are a class of welfare, but not all welfare is reduced to entitlements. Also, during Rand's time, you did get more back than what you put in. Of course, your own article proves me wrong on today's social security system, sure, but in the past that used to be the case and even the article acknowledges that.

Mr. Greenspan, the former chairman of a central bank, is not the first-most authority on Objectivism however, at least not compared to Rand. She saw the collection of social security or medicare as something that is fine if one "regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism." For example, I can critique having the major highways owned by the government even though I drive on one any day, as I realize that their current public funding constitutes a form of legalized larceny, and that I owe no favors to myself if I simply try to opt out of using them, for it is partial restitution for what has been promised. But I can morally condemn those who continue to advocate for the continued larceny.

Erm, no. An entitlement is something you deserve, regardless of hardship or whatnot. Welfare on the other hand is only directed towards those in need. Yet because I could be extremely rich and well off and still receive a social security check, it is not welfare. Reread the first paragraph.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I actually have read what she and her disciples wrote after Atlas Shrugged, including "The Virtue of Selfishness" which is a composition of her own self-writings and those of her first disciples, including Peikoff. It's no coincidence that Alan Greenspan, a Randian, thought that unironically "Social Security was a system of altruism at its worst. Its beneficiaries were looters. Raising their taxes and cutting their benefits was no loss to society.”

http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when ... icare.html

An entitlement is still welfare, it's just another name for welfare. Medicare is also an entitlement, it is still welfare. Entitlements are a class of welfare, but not all welfare is reduced to entitlements. Also, during Rand's time, you did get more back than what you put in. Of course, your own article proves me wrong on today's social security system, sure, but in the past that used to be the case and even the article acknowledges that.

Mr. Greenspan, the former chairman of a central bank, is not the first-most authority on Objectivism however, at least not compared to Rand. She saw the collection of social security or medicare as something that is fine if one "regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism." For example, I can critique having the major highways owned by the government even though I drive on one any day, as I realize that their current public funding constitutes a form of legalized larceny, and that I owe no favors to myself if I simply try to opt out of using them, for it is partial restitution for what has been promised. But I can morally condemn those who continue to advocate for the continued larceny.

Erm, no. An entitlement is something you deserve, regardless of hardship or whatnot. Welfare on the other hand is only directed towards those in need. Yet because I could be extremely rich and well off and still receive a social security check, it is not welfare. Reread the first paragraph.

I'm just using your distorted definition that welfare = "a safety net for workers". If you didn't mean to say that, then why contradict me and say "but it's not welfare tho".

Mr. Greenspan studied under Rand's tutelage. His ideas didn't come from nowhere. And Randians trying to use apologetics to justify her using benefits she criticized during her lifetime enough so that her disciples were vehemently against it is more telling. You judge a tree by its fruit, not by its roots.

[The Liberated Territories]

Mr. Greenspan, the former chairman of a central bank, is not the first-most authority on Objectivism however, at least not compared to Rand. She saw the collection of social security or medicare as something that is fine if one "regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism." For example, I can critique having the major highways owned by the government even though I drive on one any day, as I realize that their current public funding constitutes a form of legalized larceny, and that I owe no favors to myself if I simply try to opt out of using them, for it is partial restitution for what has been promised. But I can morally condemn those who continue to advocate for the continued larceny.

Erm, no. An entitlement is something you deserve, regardless of hardship or whatnot. Welfare on the other hand is only directed towards those in need. Yet because I could be extremely rich and well off and still receive a social security check, it is not welfare. Reread the first paragraph.

I'm just using your distorted definition that welfare = "a safety net for workers". If you didn't mean to say that, then why contradict me and say "but it's not welfare tho".

Mr. Greenspan studied under Rand's tutelage. His ideas came from nowhere. And Randians trying to use apologetics to justify her using benefits she criticized during her lifetime enough so that her disciples were vehemently against it is more telling. You judge a tree by its fruit, not by its roots.

Welfare is a safety net for workers. Social security is not welfare, it is an entitlement, and therefore not a real safety net. I do not think I implied anything otherwise.

Except that the original argument was whether Rand was hypocritical according to her own belief system, which as shown, she was not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm just using your distorted definition that welfare = "a safety net for workers". If you didn't mean to say that, then why contradict me and say "but it's not welfare tho".

Mr. Greenspan studied under Rand's tutelage. His ideas came from nowhere. And Randians trying to use apologetics to justify her using benefits she criticized during her lifetime enough so that her disciples were vehemently against it is more telling. You judge a tree by its fruit, not by its roots.

Welfare is a safety net for workers. Social security is not welfare, it is an entitlement, and therefore not a real safety net. I do not think I implied anything otherwise.

Except that the original argument was whether Rand was hypocritical according to her own belief system, which as shown, she was not.

A safety net for workers doesn't necessarily mean you are either going for an entitlement or welfare. It's simply a safety net. Safety nets are not, in and of themselves, welfare or entitlements, they are simply ways in which you protect workers. For instance, your 401k is a safety net. Having money in your bank account is a safety net. Social Security is a safety net provided by the government for your old age (SSI is also a safety net, but it operates under different rules than Standard Social Security).

And she was, she just never wrote anything about it. But then again, like I said, most of her ideology was inconsistent. She made the rules after Atlas, and she pretty much either doubled down, or disavowed several of the stuff she said on Atlas. That's not a ringing endorsement for her philosophy being a static, if anything that makes her philosophy a dynamic point of view, and since that is the case, then the only people we have evidence of her true beliefs are her disciples who, if you're going to say they're not representatives of her ideology, then they are not true Randians either, and her outlasting and outstanding disciples are nothing but a motley crew of failures, which is even more telling.

[United Republic of Pinewald]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZqKpfVW0i0 Rand On Donahue in '79.

May seem a little bitchy at times, but SHE was an inspiration for all the Yuppies that came in by the 80's!

I've randomly edged myself in- but when it's for Rand- dilligaf!?

[VoVoDoCo]

I'm for it. Not because I think everyone needs to live til they're 80, but because it's better than the alternatives. Which are:

• State Capitalism/Authoritarian Socialism-Thinking that capitalist run economies are terrible, but GOVERNMENT run economies are beautiful
• Forced redistributionism (or whatever that's called)
• Capitalism with no welfare spending-bound to be replaced by either the above two, or social democracy.

Cut military spending and some health care entitlements and it pays for itself. Add environment regulation and it's sustainable. Not to mention as a potential politician that would be very capitalist minded, it'd be easy for me to feign hesitance to support such a policy to lure a social democrat to agree with something else on my agenda.

What kind of libertarian are you, if I may ask?

One that prefers Social Democracy to state ownership of production. I'm not for a welfare state, or free housing, or free healthcare. I was mostly pointing out that if equality is what somebody wants, the Nordic Model is probably the best. Although, In America we'd hardly need super high taxes. We have some of the wealthiest people in the world, a military with urgent cuts needed, and the like. Having a moderate tax on the rich and cutting military spending DRASTICALLY could probably fund an American Nordic Model. I don't believe that the rich are evil, and therefore need to be taxed heavily. Just taxed a little more than everyone else to avoid the authoritarian left (such as the few that showed up in this thread,) getting majority support.

I'm a moderate Libertarian.

[Guyohkohnyo]

Tagging; always been an avid reader of Rand. Disclaimer; I like free trade and all, but (and this is part of defending individual rights too) if some community wants to pursue socialism without initiating violence then what loss is it?

[Zottistan]

For advice on being an asshole while maintaining a good reputation, see Machiavelli.

Except Machiavelli wasn't advising people to be evil.

Never said he was.

[Northern Davincia]

A moneyless, stateless, and classless society is pretty utopian.

Not really, Utopian would imply such societies have never existed, which is patently not true. Money, States and Classes are all comparatively recent human inventions compared to how long human society has been in existence.

I honestly dare you to argue that chieftains did not qualify as a class.

[El Hamidah]

Ayn Rand, a terrible, Satanic, wicked individual that perfectly represents the evil and immoral Libertarian mentality.

A massive hypocrite funnily enough, considering she happily relied on government welfare multiple times throughout her life.

Now this is a you problem. Ayn Rand wasn't any of these things.

She was misguided. And she was an amateur reactionary Russian writer who let her childhood under the Soviet Union and reason why she left the Soviet Union color her beliefs in life to meme-tier proportions, but she wasn't "evil".

Oh yes she was. The Right Wing Libertarian thinkers were fucking crazy.

The woman revered a child murderer because of his singleminded, amoral pursuit of his own happiness.

What Rothbard wanted to do with children is arguably worse.

[Northern Davincia]

Now this is a you problem. Ayn Rand wasn't any of these things.

She was misguided. And she was an amateur reactionary Russian writer who let her childhood under the Soviet Union and reason why she left the Soviet Union color her beliefs in life to meme-tier proportions, but she wasn't "evil".

Oh yes she was. The Right Wing Libertarian thinkers were fucking crazy.

The woman revered a child murderer because of his singleminded, amoral pursuit of his own happiness.

What Rothbard wanted to do with children is arguably worse.

She did not revere a child murderer.
http://www.objectobot.com/?p=442

[The Black Forrest]

Oh yes she was. The Right Wing Libertarian thinkers were fucking crazy.

The woman revered a child murderer because of his singleminded, amoral pursuit of his own happiness.

What Rothbard wanted to do with children is arguably worse.

She did not revere a child murderer.
http://www.objectobot.com/?p=442

Hmmm. Seems more of a "nuh uh" then an arguement. Sources would have improved it.

This guy talks about how she did.....
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/ ... -cold.html