This seems topical, since we have several Objectivists floating around.

Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did t...

 

Noted speed freak, serial-killer fangirl, and Tea Party hero Ayn Rand was also a kleptoparasite, sneakily gobbling up taxpayer funds under an assumed name [note: it might have been her legal name] to pay for her medical treatments after she got lung cancer.

tea-party-john-galt.jpgAn interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so.

 

I like the part under the 'serial-killer fangirl' link.  Her concept of a real man is great.

Views: 63

Replies to This Discussion

Ayn Rand: over-hyped and overrated. Hypocritical is no surprise either.
I think people way too often equate objectivity, with Ayn Rand. Now, I understand why, but I identify with her a whole hell of a lot less than I do with her epistemology and metaphysics as well as a good part of her ethics and politics, but I think she was a bit emotional, stubborn and near-sited. And so what if she was a bit of a hypocrite at times? After all, she is an early-mid 20th century woman. People just love cutting her down. She was extremely intellectually honest and brave for her time. Also, imo, people who consider themselves Objectivist (with a capital O), tend to be AR worshippers. Gives o'ism a bad name. I think objectivism (small o) is valid as it describes the nature of the universe as a whole. Big O'ists talk about freewill. I think that is bunk.

Actually, it's not quite 'objectivity'.  There's a capital O, as you noted later in your post.  Objectivism is a philosophy/political movement built off of her world outlook.  They line up with the Libertarians in most ways.  It's not so much that they tend to be AR worshipers.  They pretty much declare an acceptance of her philosophy by the very acceptance of the label.

 

Honest and brave, maybe, but when she's being honest about views that are as screwed up as hers were, she doesn't gain a lot of points from me.

"They pretty much declare an acceptance of her philosophy by the very acceptance of the label."

Like it's gospel. That is more of what I wanted to say.

I think she was at times, not so objective or honest. However, I think it can be difficult semantically at times, since I do not like to think of myself as an O'ist, but I do believe that there is one reality, it is objective, knowledge is possible, reason is the only means to it, rights can only pertain to the individual and individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. I like some of what she has to say about art. Some I don't. She can keep her freewill, self-preservation, submissive women and anti-Native American ideas. So, if you don't like these ideas and she doesn't get points from you, why not leave her be and address each or one or some of the ideas? I think this post appears to me to be diametrically opposed but in a way very similar to O'ists grouping around a woman. As if people who believe she was correct, as a philosopher, in some varying degree of respects, are guilty of her hypocrisy.
  • Like it's gospel. That is more of what I wanted to say.

Amen.

 

  • ... since I do not like to think of myself as an O'ist, but I do believe that there is one reality, it is objective, knowledge is possible, reason is the only means to it, rights can only pertain to the individual and individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law ...

Certainly.  Good stuff, up until that point.  You don't get to the capital O until after that, when they start getting into the hardcore individualism to the expense of any and all governmental functionality and philanthropy.

 

  • So, if you don't like these ideas and she doesn't get points from you, why not leave her be and address each or one or some of the ideas?
  • ...
  • As if people who believe she was correct, as a philosopher, in some varying degree of respects, are guilty of her hypocrisy.

It mostly has to do with her followers, the capital-L Libertarians, which we have popping up all over the place within the atheism movement.  My own, local group fragmented into two groups, because of the Libertarians raging around like bulls, hijacking every message thread on the message board and generally annoying everyone else.

 

They tend to follow Rand and other proponents of Libertarianism to the point of dogma, and it annoys me to see atheists falling into dogma.  We're supposed to be above that sort of thing.

"hardcore individualism to the expense of any and all governmental functionality and philanthropy."

The government's only function should be protecting individual rights, which can't really logically inhibit its own function, since that should, imo, be its only function.

So, protecting individual rights is OK in your mind as long as it allows for the violation of individual rights, if voted that way by the majority? Mob rule. Who decides where individual's money goes? Corrupt politicians, that's who. They are necessarily corrupt because they lobby, bribe, blackmail, pay-off, pay-back, kick-back and earmark to Kingdom Come! That's how it functions normally. That is based on the structure of the machine. We are also built for war here in this country, but that's a different story, kind of.

 

Even government violation of personal freedom cannot stop philanthropy and charity, let alone if people could decide where all their own money goes.

 

A commitment to reason and reality cannot be dogmatic, it is objective. Reality must be the standard. Dogma is arbitrary. Although, I do realize that O'ists are not fully committed and can be dogmatic.

  • So, protecting individual rights is OK in your mind as long as it allows for the violation of individual rights, if voted that way by the majority? Mob rule.

Not at all.  We have something called a Constitution.  That's there to protect the rights of the minority.  When the wolves and sheep get together to vote on what they should have for dinner, the Constitution is what says that it won't be the sheep.

 

  • Who decides where individual's money goes? Corrupt politicians, that's who. They are necessarily corrupt because they lobby, bribe, blackmail, pay-off, pay-back, kick-back and earmark to Kingdom Come!

So, what you're saying is that because there exist politicians who are corrupt and are bought off by rich people with an agenda, we should tear down the entire system and let the rich people who are corrupting the system do whatever they want?  Strangely, I think we'll be better off if we try to fix the system.

 

The whole point of the system is to prevent the rich from abusing the poor.  The rich benefit from the system as well, because it prevents the poor from turning into a mob and murdering the rich.

 

  • A commitment to reason and reality cannot be dogmatic, it is objective. Reality must be the standard. Dogma is arbitrary. Although, I do realize that O'ists are not fully committed and can be dogmatic.

Exactly, which is why Libertarians piss me off.  There was a discussion in the comment section of Atheist Singles recently, which displayed it perfectly.  Libertarians are playing philosophy off in some fantasy land, where rich people and corporations are noble and will do what's best for everyone, if the meddling government would stop oppressing them.  Libertarians are freaking delusional.

More about that fantasy land: libertarians also think that without social security and other taxes, people will just save up enough money for themselves for retirement. No they won't! Have you ever seen people get a tax return, and then go out and get a tattoo with the money? And the people that don't save up that money will most likely rob whoever does.

Exactly.  When you keep people out of poverty, it makes the entire society a better place to live.  It's better to accept a smaller percentage of the pie ... and enlarge the pie.
Libetarians are just conservative republicans that want to smoke dope and get laid.

JP,

 

Sheep, wolves, hummingbirds or horses, no one should get preferential treatment from the government. If the government upholds individual rights, wolves will not be able to eat sheep. You under the mistaken impression that being alive and kicking ass necessarily hurts other people. This is not the case. EVERYONE should be held accountable for impinging on another person's rights. And EVERYONE should be able to be free from groups of sheep taking their money just because they are sheep.

 

Governmental management of anything other than the monopolization of physical force is necessarily corrupt. The purpose of the system should not be to protect the poor from the rich, but all of us from anyone who would take away our freedoms. The mixed, part socialistic system we have does not protect the rich, it takes a gigantic portion of their means of living away from them. Doing what's best for everyone is not the responsibility of corpoorations and rich people. Moral choices can only be from the aspect of an individual. You may choose to do something nice for someone else, but it is not your responsibility to do so.

 

I see how Libertarians seem to be off in some hypothetical philoland. But, that is only because we Americans are used to the GOP and Dems arguing over tax cuts and we can't really return full individual rights without severely upsetting the system and the people in it. But, imo, this is just a demonstration of how sick the system is. We are slaves. I never agreed to support the poor, yet I have to, on pain of incarceration. I do not advocate sudden and abrupt devastation, but realization that socialism is first and foremost an attack on the individual.

So you don't want to help society?  You just want to help yourself?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service