Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same
chatnoir
headline:
Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the
same
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 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.
Ayn Rand and the VIP-DIPers
Funny
billzz
Well, if she contributed to Social Security and paid taxes, is it a
"handout?" I think it is "earned benefits." If she did not
contribute anything, then it is a handout. Anyway, I know little
about her, but it seems to be complex....
billzz
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:38:21 -0800 (PST), chatnoir
> read Ayn Rand's novels and flirt with her glorification of
> selfishness. Most got over it. The Cato Institute takes her
> seriously, still, and I see her notions expressed by right wing
> politicians now and then as well.
It is probably the province of the young to think that self-reliance
is the only way, and that one can live that way forever. The
realization of age is that we are all dependents, in some way.
Hopefully we have all contributed to society, in whatever form, so
that when we need the help it will be there. I have never begrudged
paying income taxes - at least I have some income. Other taxes, I am
not so sure.
So my neighbor fell down, and being in the Sierra Nevada, it had to be
snowing, and no one could get out. But El Dorado County sent a tandem-
wheeled four wheel drive, with chains, EMT on wheels, and she got
immediate treatment and taken to the local hospital, and all went
well. And I thought that the vehicle had to cost several hundred
thousand dollars. let alone the medics, on call. Hopefully I never
have to use it. But it's there. I helped pay for it. Self-reliance
is good. Until you get old. And you fall down.
Werner
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:38:21 -0800 (PST), chatnoir
>
>
>
>
>
> <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> read Ayn Rand's novels and flirt with her glorification of
> selfishness. Most got over it. The Cato Institute takes her
> seriously, still, and I see her notions expressed by right wing
> politicians now and then as well.
Mao, Marx and others were also on the reading list. I expect you know
that. You, Rita, expect others to pay your bills. That would be an
example of selfishness. Your version of selfishness is different from
Rand in that Rand rejects the notion that other people be forced to
live for your benefit. Selfishness is a human survival adaptation.
Oppression is an entirely different form of it.
Werner
...
>
> It is probably the province of the young to think that self-reliance
Increasingly the young reject self-reliance for dependency. Like Rita,
the citizenry prefers reliance on the welfare state. Takers have
replaced makers. Self reliance will have to be relearned. It's likely
this will happen sooner than later. Being bankrupt, the state will
find it increasingly difficult to dish out welfare to buy votes.
Triage is our future.
Werner
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:58:59 -0800, Rita <R...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:38:21 -0800 (PST), chatnoir
> ><wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >read Ayn Rand's novels and flirt with her glorification of
> >selfishness. Most got over it. The Cato Institute takes her
> >seriously, still, and I see her notions expressed by right wing
> >politicians now and then as well.
>
> suppose there is something about her philosophy of greed that appeals
> to our selfishness during the juvenile years. After all, doesn't
> the Earth revolve around us at that age ? As you say, most of us
> outgrow it.
>
> Come to think about it, I first voted Republican while I was reading
> her books. My g-d ! Could there have been a connection ?
You need to read her again. Her philosophy has nothing to do with
greed.
Werner
Werner
> sure she had a big fan in Werner.
>
> Thanks for proving me right.
>
> Since she did draw Social Security and used Medicare to pay
> for her medical treatments in later years, will you do the same?
> Is that is expecting others to pay your bills? Seems for you it
> is. Am I supposed to be ashamed of drawing my SS benefits
> and my Medicare benefits? If so then most in this group are
> free loaders as well.
Of course I get SS and Medicare. I'd be an fool not to take them. Once
Congress decrees I have a right to your house I'll take it too. It
would be my right, after all.
Now tell me how this is the altruism you imagine.
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
> 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 to pay for her medical treatments after she got lung
> cancer.
Since she was 77 years old when she died in 1982, and had a long work
history, she undoubtely qualified for both Social Security and
Medicare benefits.
Her real first name was Alissa, but she used Ayn as a pen name most of
her life. The name Ayn is thought to be a Finnish or Hebrew nickname
for Alissa. She was married to Frank O'Connor for 50 years (until he
died), so use of of the last name O'Connor was perfectly legitimate.
The name "Rand" from her pen name was simply the brand of typewriter
that she used. In any event, both Social Security and Medicare
benefits are obtained based on Social Security number, not on a
person's name.
Werner
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:11:53 -0800 (PST), Werner <whetz...@mac.com>
> for other folks to get it ?
I don't talk in terms of good and evil. That would be Rita's thing. To
her I'm evil because I point out that what she sees as greed is what
she herself does. SS and Obamacare have nothing at all to do with
altruism or some lofty morality. It is simply self interest to want
someone else to sacrifice for your interest. Rand's message is that
no one should be forced sacrifice for someone else. That is not a
message of greed. It is the absence of oppression.
The fundamental problem with programs like SS is they exploit and are
exploited. This leads to tragedy.
http://www.EndIt.info/how.html
chatnoir
Then no one would be helped!
Werner
Nobody should help themselves to other people's property. It is,
however, widely accepted that charity is good. Charity is voluntary
not compulsory.
Libertarian
> e:
Rand Paul says that Ayn Rand was a staunch individualist whose urine tasted
like fine wine, her feces like Belgian chocolate. She was infallible and
that's why all good libertarians are supporters of the Republican party.
Except for the miliary. A true Libertarian military would be a militia that
would buy their own guns and ammo, pay for their own food and toilet paper
and fork over the rent for where they lived instead of sucking from the
taxpayer teat and getting a free ride like you and your Hitler following
father did. Did you even pay for your own condoms?
chatnoir
If charity is voluntary, then only the cute, loveable and popular
would get charity!
Islander
> Nobody should help themselves to other people's property. It is,
> however, widely accepted that charity is good. Charity is voluntary
> not compulsory.
>
In the study that I did last summer I found that conservative states did
a far poorer job of meeting the needs of their people, charity or
otherwise, in every measurable category that I could find statistics on.
Further, if you exclude donations to churches, charitable donations in
conservative states are lower than for liberal states.
Your argument is a feeble excuse for being blind to the needs of those
who are less fortunate than you.
Werner
> On 1/30/2011 6:26 AM, Werner wrote:
>
> > Nobody should help themselves to other people's property. It is,
> > however, widely accepted that charity is good. Charity is voluntary
> > not compulsory.
>
> In the study that I did last summer I found that conservative states did
> a far poorer job of meeting the needs of their people, charity or
> otherwise, in every measurable category that I could find statistics on.
> Further, if you exclude donations to churches, charitable donations in
> conservative states are lower than for liberal states.
>
I have no information on charity. But why would you exclude donations
to churches?
Werner
If it's not voluntary it's not charity. I have no information on
charity. What information do you have to support your contention?
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
If Werner were born in the early 19th century, I'd say that
Dickens used him as the model for Ebeneezer Scrooge.
GlennR
"chatnoir" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:c934b8eb-86e4-4048...@h16g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
wow, then I should be expecting a bundle is what you're saying
GlennR
"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNot...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:20gck61aacqnp6j9v...@4ax.com...
there was hope for scrooge, there is no hope for this gomer, he is destined
to burn for eternity,
like the rest of the right wing savages,
or they might let him come back and try again as a slave in 1790 georgia
Islander
> On Jan 30, 9:11 pm, Islander<nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
>> On 1/30/2011 6:26 AM, Werner wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody should help themselves to other people's property. It is,
>>> however, widely accepted that charity is good. Charity is voluntary
>>> not compulsory.
>>
>> In the study that I did last summer I found that conservative states did
>> a far poorer job of meeting the needs of their people, charity or
>> otherwise, in every measurable category that I could find statistics on.
>> Further, if you exclude donations to churches, charitable donations in
>> conservative states are lower than for liberal states.
>>
>
> I have no information on charity. But why would you exclude donations
> to churches?
Because in my experience, the majority of the money donated to churches
never finds its way to those in need. I would advocate a strict
financial separation between the religious aspects of churches and the
charities that they claim to support.
There are some notable exceptions. My wife and I volunteered at a food
kitchen before we retired that was run by a local church. There are
also quite a few assisted living facilities that are run by churches,
but you have to examine these closely to assure that they are not profit
centers rather than charities. The same thing goes for the hospitals
and colleges started by churches.
Money used to further the religious message of a church does not qualify
as charity in my view.
Werner
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> If Werner were born in the early 19th century, I'd say that
> Dickens used him as the model for Ebeneezer Scrooge.
Actually not. Dickens understood the meaning of charity. You don't.
This is why you resemble Scrooge more than I do.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
Dickens didn't have the pleasure of reading Ayn Rand,
but since his works are about as close to the polar opposite
of hers as possible, I very much doubt that.
Werner
My experience in soup kitchens is that there is an expectation for
recipients to "hear the word" as a condition of receiving eats. I have
no problem with that and neither should you.
Werner
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:19:20 -0800 (PST), Werner <whetz...@mac.com>
Show me some evidence that Rand opposed charity.
Werner
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:17:02 -0800, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
> goal. To spread the gospel of JC. Any money collected goes either
> for that purpose -- or as compensation for the preacher. Some
> churches do a little charitable work but -- it's more by accident than
> design.
>
> As you mention about local churches -- some are like any other
> organization and wish to be good neighbors. When so inclined --
> they can be a lot of help to local problems. But that is not their
> main purpose.
>
> To give money to a church hoping to help the poor and needy -- is
> usually money wasted.
>
> Our conservative friends need to study the "social contract". It is
> that contract that protects the property of rich from the mobs -- in
> exchange for which, the rich (by taxation) feed the poor when it is
> needed.
Our socialist friends need to recognize that eventually you run out of
other people's money. That time has come. Have you not noticed? As for
the social contract, our socialist friends need to remember contracts
are voluntarily agreed to for mutual benefit.
You should also take note The War on Poverty increased poverty.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>On Jan 31, 12:13 pm, Rumpelstiltskin
Blue sky argument.
The Post Quartermaster
"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNot...@nowhere.net> wrote in
message news:t6aek6tfrde9e22sf...@4ax.com...
seems like she was a much better prognosticator that Nostredamus
(sic???). That John Galt was one smart dude.
--
Why not stop all this silliness and just replace
all the taxes we now pay with a simple asset
tax and leave us alone. Atlas is shrugging
again.
http://atlasshrugged.com/articles/why-businessmen-need-philosophy/
JC The Post Quartermaster
http://www.cato.org/
Werner
> collapse along with the government. When that happens we will all
> learn that the only thing we actually own is what we can carry in one
> hand while running through the underbrush.
>
> At that point, the more we have -- the more we lose. Which is why I
> strongly advise our rich friends to enjoy paying taxes -- while they
> can. It's far cheaper than revolutions.
>
Attachments are the source of all suffering.
> >You should also take note The War on Poverty increased poverty.
>
> I've noticed that all wars cost more than they are worth. Including
> foreign wars, moral wars and drug wars.
They cost some and benefit others.
Werner
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:16:50 -0800 (PST), Werner <whetz...@mac.com>
So no evidence for your argument.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>On Jan 31, 4:27 pm, Rumpelstiltskin
You brought up charity all by yourself, irrelevantly.
Islander
> My experience in soup kitchens is that there is an expectation for
> recipients to "hear the word" as a condition of receiving eats. I have
> no problem with that and neither should you.
"Neither should I?" That is pretty judgmental!
Islander
> You should also take note The War on Poverty increased poverty.
Simply not true. First of all, the roots of the War on Poverty were in
FDR's New Deal and the Four Freedoms, well before LBJ coined the term in
1964. If you look at the poverty rate starting in 1959, it decreased
from about 22% to a low of about 12% in the late '70s. Since then, it
grew during Reagan's first term, during GHW Bush's administration and
through the entirety of GW Bush's administration. It declined from
about 15% to about 11% during Clinton's administration and rose again to
15% by the end of the GW Bush administration.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of anti-poverty efforts is shown in
increasing benefit for lower cost over the years. Monthly benefits have
been declining since the late '70s, now about 2/3 what they were then.
Republican efforts to kill anti-poverty programs notwithstanding, good
programs have persisted and have done good things.
Islander
> Show me some evidence that Rand opposed charity.
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major
virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty."
“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
I want to again quote from Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man
under socialism. This is a work I greatly admire, despite that
it is admittedly impracticably utopian. I regard impracticability
with "good" intentions as superior to practicability with "bad"
intentions though, because the former is amenable to
improvement whereas the latter is not.
I was very surprised when Werner first said he had worked
in a soup kitchen, because it seems to me so at odds with his
general social outlook. That's something I've never done
and don't expect that I ever will do. He did spoil it a bit in
this thread though, when he said that he felt that poor people
should pay for charity by listening to people posing as being
superior to themselves. Interestingly, Wilde addresses that
point exactly, within the excerpt reproduced below.
Charity, in the most common sense used today, is, IMV,
an inadequate partial compensation for a social system that
has failed the people, as Wilde says below.
------------------------------------------
from "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" -- Oscar Wilde
The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are
much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are
grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the
best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are
ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They
are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a
ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a
sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent
attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over
their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the
crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be
seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for
being discontented, a man who would not be discontented
with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be
a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who
has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through
disobedience that progress has been made, through
disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are
praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the
poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a
man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country
labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral.
Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a
badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and
should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered
by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is
safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to
beg. No; a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty,
discontented, and rebellious is probably a real
personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a
healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity
them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They
have made private terms with the enemy and sold their
birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be
extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man
accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of
its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under these
conditions to realise some form of beautiful and
intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a
man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws
can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.
Werner
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:36:46 -0800, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 1/31/2011 10:14 AM, Werner wrote:
> >> My experience in soup kitchens is that there is an expectation for
> >> recipients to "hear the word" as a condition of receiving eats. I have
> >> no problem with that and neither should you.
>
> >"Neither should I?" That is pretty judgmental!
>
> I want to again quote from Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man
> under socialism. This is a work I greatly admire, despite that
> it is admittedly impracticably utopian. I regard impracticability
> with "good" intentions as superior to practicability with "bad"
> intentions though, because the former is amenable to
> improvement whereas the latter is not.
>
> I was very surprised when Werner first said he had worked
> in a soup kitchen, because it seems to me so at odds with his
> general social outlook. That's something I've never done
> and don't expect that I ever will do. He did spoil it a bit in
> this thread though, when he said that he felt that poor people
> should pay for charity by listening to people posing as being
>
The essential difference between religious arrogance in soup kitchens
and yours is persuasion instead of force.
Another important difference is that your arrogance seeks to fix
"society" while the religiously arrogant seek to fix individuals.
Still another difference is that apparently you don't care enough to
actually do something yourself for those you claim to care for. You
expect "society" to do it for you.
> ---------------------------------
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>On Feb 1, 1:18�am, Rumpelstiltskin
><PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:36:46 -0800, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 1/31/2011 10:14 AM, Werner wrote:
>> >> My experience in soup kitchens is that there is an expectation for
>> >> recipients to "hear the word" as a condition of receiving eats. I have
>> >> no problem with that and neither should you.
>>
>> >"Neither should I?" �That is pretty judgmental!
>>
>> � �I want to again quote from Oscar Wilde's "The Soul of Man
>> under socialism. �This is a work I greatly admire, despite that
>> it is admittedly impracticably utopian. �I regard impracticability
>> with "good" intentions as superior to practicability with "bad"
>> intentions though, because the former is amenable to
>> improvement whereas the latter is not. �
>>
>> � �I was very surprised when Werner first said he had worked
>> in a soup kitchen, because it seems to me so at odds with his
>> general social outlook. �That's something I've never done
>> and �don't expect that I ever will do. �He did spoil it a bit in
>> this thread though, when he said that he felt that poor people
>> should pay for charity by listening to people posing as being
>> superior to themselves...
>>
>
>
>The essential difference between religious arrogance in soup kitchens
>and yours is persuasion instead of force.
You and I differ in that I think society has a responsibility
to look after the welfare of the population in general, and
you don't.
>
>Another important difference is that your arrogance seeks to fix
>"society" while the religiously arrogant seek to fix individuals.
>
>Still another difference is that apparently you don't care enough to
>actually do something yourself for those you claim to care for. You
>expect "society" to do it for you.
I give money. I don't work in soup kitchens which I admit
is more commendable and more "virtuous". As I noted, it
was surprising to me when I heard that you did, given that
you don't seem to think that society has any obligation to
look out for general welfare.
Werner
Nothing about opposition in that. I don't consider it a major virtue
or a moral duty either. Few people do. However Many consider charity
to be other people' duty. The rich are popular scapegoats.
The Post Quartermaster
"Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:097bae5e-73e1-491f...@o39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
**
I believe in charity. I don't believe in government compelled charity.
I give plenty but I give it in my own home town, to people that I know
are in need. That way, what I give goes 100% to the ones that need it,
not split between some bureaucrat and 9 levels of bullshit. I know who
is going to give me a phony sob story and who is going to be a
legitimate case of need.
Werner
<quartermasterextraordina...@postfiftyone.org> wrote:
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
:-)