@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't believe the motivations of the author are the matter under discussion here, but rather, the fact that her stated views and beliefs are not consistent with her actions.
Your belief is mistaken. You quote the author as authority for the truth about her stated views and beliefs.
No, I didn't. I thought she had an interesting take on the movie 'The Fountainhead.' I saw it a few years back and I believe the criticisms in this piece are dead-on.
Quote: Partisan rants don't establish any credible authority. Neither does "a light-hearted movie review". Either way, citing it to support your point compromises your conclusions about her stated views and beliefs.
The point of that post - and it's the first one I've made in this thread - was asking people to review some of Rand's work and re-evaluate their position. If you don't like the substance of the piece about the movie I posted, fine with me.
Quote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Let us recall the famous Oath that John Galt took:
Quote: I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Where in there does it say 'unless I need assistance, in which case, sign me up?'
John Galt wouldn't have justified Rand's accepting Medicare on the basis of her need. He would have justified it on the basis that the money she got had never been the SSA's to give her. It had rightfully belonged to Rand's all the time, and the SSA had been morally wrong to take it in the first place.
But the SSA doesn't work that way and you know it! The money they 'gave' to her wasn't her money at all. HER money was given to someone else, long ago. Instead she took OTHER PEOPLE'S money. And there's every reason to believe that she received more money than she put in, because this happens all the time as the system is adjusted by politicians.
Your account works with some fantasy where the SSA is a government-owned bank account, where people's contributions just sit there waiting for them. Not in the real world.
Quote:Only under the Social Security's worldview, not to Rand's worldview.
Her worldview is incorrect here. This isn't an opinion; this is a fact about how SS works. But you already knew that and are just being contentious. Right?
Quote:And Rand's worldview is the only one that counts: The original post's charge was that she hypocritically betrayed her own worldview for her own benefit, not the SSA's.
And that's exactly what she did. Late in life, riddled with cancer, she produced nothing and had inadequate savings from her labor to pay for her own life or that of her husband. She had no further utility to society. But instead of accepting that and passing away, she took money from a system she consistently railed against.
She was a complicit partner in the system. Nothing forced her to do this other than her own self-interest. Saying that she was only receiving 'what she was owed' from the system that she was forced to participate in is a lousy cop-out; she wasn't forced to do so and she wasn't, under her own philosophy, entitled to expect others to assist her.
I can't help but notice a multitude of articles hosted at the 'Ayn Rand center for individual rights' that speak very poorly about SS and condemn those who support or rely upon it - such as this one:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10857&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Cycloptichorn