The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

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

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

Mark Frauenfelder at 10:30 AM Friday, Jan 28, 2011

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.

An 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.

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by TK on February 3, 2011 at 8:52pm

LOL have you paid attention to government lately? They don't give a flying turd about the constitution.

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on February 3, 2011 at 8:57pm

Okay the system is broke. Doesn't mean you change the system. Fix the one you have.

Permalink Reply by TK on February 3, 2011 at 9:10pm

How about you make your points without Ad Hominem attacks, or is that the level of debate you've found yourself at on this topic? All parts of the government aren't respecting the constitution. Executive, legislative and judicial. I'm not advocating a "utopian" society. I'm advocating a society where individual rights are upheld as opposed to the one we have today where they aren't. I do do something about it. I vote. In the mean time, I discuss topics and ideas.

Permalink Reply by TK on February 3, 2011 at 9:21pm

Ah yes, the law. Plunder is still plunder even if it is under the guise of the law.

Oh woe is me who has to live with my brain after such horrific ideas. LOL.

Permalink Reply by TK on February 3, 2011 at 9:35pm

At the very least, I have the ability to discuss a topic without resorting to name calling.

Permalink Reply by MCT on February 3, 2011 at 9:45pm

"At the very least, I have the ability to discuss a topic without resorting to name calling." No kidding. Utopian, how irrelevant.

Permalink Reply by Shannon on February 16, 2011 at 7:03pm

Mike et al.

We are not paying the poor with handouts as much as we are paying to the rich. We have to have as extensive a social net as we do because biz will not pay people a living wage for their workers. Our food stamps and health benefits keep wages low. If business paid a living wage and provided reasonable healthcare we wouldn't have people staying on welfare to keep health benefits for their children. We wouldn't have so many people on medicaid. If you want to look at welfare as a problem look at big pharma and big agriculture subsidies.

If you treat the have-nots like they are disposable you'll end up with your throat cut or being sniped from a distance. Then they will have and you will not. Ever heard of the French Revolution? Admittedly there are problems over there but the uprising was self-inflicted. If you treat people right and consider their welfare as much as your own you don't need unions, you don't need as many lawyers, you don't need so much government.

To have less government people need to work in groups and out into larger groups. I assure you our ancestors who thought only of themselves were tiger food pretty quick. The only way or primitive ancestors survived was by working together collectively. The same is true today. As a footnote- no one is physically taking your money. As I said earlier- a Libertarian society in the true Randian sense The leaders wont be alive for long. Isn't that the Rand way? Survival of the fittest and damn everyone else.

Even Apes and Chimps have a social code of sharing and fairness that they enforce as a group.

Permalink Reply by MCT on February 16, 2011 at 11:11pm

By Mike, I will assume you mean me. Wealth redistribution to the rich?! That's rich. You twist words. The rich pay higher taxes for the support of welfare. Welfare takes money, it does not give it. It is not the responsibility of an employer to take care of people and fully support them regardless of their work, it is only their responsibility to pay for what is agreed upon work for that pay. It is each person's responsibility to take care of themselves. And government should be there to ensure that each person is free to do so, not to ensure that they have money and healthcare, especially when that necessarily entails charging people by force for their money. The French Revolution was against a monarchy not interested in people's freedom. It is completely different. Fairness? Is it fair that you vote my money away for things I do not wish to pay for? And suggesting that I owe my life, livelihood or ability to sustain myself to some social contract or infrastructure is conjecture. I believe society would thrive if people were relatively free to do with their money as they saw fit.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on February 16, 2011 at 11:14pm

And I believe we'd become a third-world country within a generation.

Permalink Reply by MCT on February 16, 2011 at 11:50pm

And that is ridiculous.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on February 17, 2011 at 12:00am

So is your proposition. Corporations don't give a damn about the people. If you don't force them to pay a living wage, they won't, particularly at the lower end of the scale. We'd have situations like in the countries that we send some of our manufacturing jobs off to, with people making a fraction of a dollar an hour.

As it is, the minimum wage laws don't do enough. We already have too high a percentage of the wealth held by too few of the people. Pure capitalism would make the situation worse.

Permalink Reply by david perry on February 17, 2011 at 2:33am

You ought to know better by now than to try to reason with a Libertarian. It's hard right conservatism with tenure, the same draconian ideology in fancier clothes, and usually without the racism.